Sheriffs Must Follow Court-Approved Fee Process or Face Administrative Liability

The Supreme Court has long held that public office is a public trust, and this principle applies with special force to court personnel. In a 2005 administrative case, the Court reminded sheriffs that they cannot simply collect whatever amounts they deem reasonable for serving court processes. The case of Anonymous Complaint Against Pershing T. Yared (A.M. No. P-05-2015, June 28, 2005) clarifies the strict procedure for collecting sheriff's expenses and the consequences for ignoring it.

The Facts of the Case

Sheriff Pershing T. Yared, assigned to the Municipal Trial Court in Cities in Canlaon City, Negros Oriental, was the subject of an anonymous complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman. The complaint alleged that Yared collected excessive service fees from the Rural Bank of Guihulngan for serving summons in several civil cases.

The complainant submitted two receipts: one for P1,350.00 covering summons in three civil cases, and another for P1,650.00 covering four civil cases. Under Section 9(a) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, the sheriff was entitled to only P60.00 per defendant served. With 23 defendants involved, the lawful fee should have been only P1,380.00. Yared collected P3,000.00—an excess of P1,620.00.

The Sheriff's Defense

Yared did not deny collecting the amounts. Instead, he argued that the P60.00 fee was inadequate to cover his actual expenses. He claimed the rule applied only to service within the poblacion (town proper) where the sheriff is stationed, not to barangays outside it. He said he hired a motorcycle at P200.00 per day and a guide at P100.00 to locate the defendants, and that he had to make several trips because some defendants could not be found immediately.

He also invoked Executive Order No. 248, which allows government officials traveling on official business to claim travel expenses, and argued that the amounts he collected were reasonable under the circumstances.

The Issue

The central question was whether a sheriff may collect amounts beyond the fixed fee for serving summons, and if so, under what conditions.

The Ruling: A Clear Procedure Must Be Followed

The Supreme Court ruled against Yared, finding him guilty of gross dereliction of duty and fining him P5,000.00 with a stern warning.

The Court acknowledged that Section 9(a) of Rule 141 does allow sheriffs to collect additional sums for expenses. However, it emphasized that this is not a blank check. The rule mandates a specific five-step procedure:

1. The sheriff must make an estimate of the expenses to be incurred.
2. The sheriff must obtain court approval for the estimated expenses.
3. The approved amount must be deposited with the Clerk of Court and Ex Officio Sheriff by the party requesting service.
4. The Clerk of Court must disburse the amount to the sheriff assigned to effect the process.
5. The sheriff must liquidate the expenses within the same period for rendering a return on the process, with any unspent amount refunded.

In Yared's case, there was no evidence he followed any of these steps. He personally asked for and directly received the P3,000.00 from the bank, bypassing the court entirely. The Court found this to be an unlawful exaction—collecting money not as lawful fees but as a consideration for performing his duty.

Why the Defense Failed

The Court rejected Yared's arguments on several grounds. First, the claim that the P60.00 fee applied only within the poblacion had no basis in the Rules of Court. Second, the Court noted that even if the amounts seemed reasonable, the failure to follow the required procedure could not be ignored. Third, the Court emphasized that sheriffs cannot receive gratuities or voluntary payments from parties in the course of performing their duties.

The Court also noted with concern that Yared appeared to have made a habit of this practice. He attached to his motion to dismiss a certification showing he had received similar payments in eight other cases, totaling P2,000.00. This pattern of conduct, the Court said, was "an erroneous practice that should be eradicated."

Practical Takeaways

• Sheriffs must follow the Rule 141 procedure strictly. Even if the sheriff believes the fixed fee is inadequate, the proper remedy is to estimate expenses, obtain court approval, and have the amount deposited with the Clerk of Court—not to collect directly from the party.
• Reasonableness is not a defense. The Court made clear that even if the amount collected seems fair under the circumstances, bypassing the required procedure constitutes misconduct.
• Court personnel are held to high standards. The Court reiterated that everyone connected with the administration of justice, from judges to the lowliest clerk, must be above suspicion and serve as examples of integrity and honesty.
• Anonymous complaints may be acted upon. While the Court normally views anonymous complaints with caution, it will act when the charges can be verified from public records of indubitable integrity.
• Excess collections constitute unlawful exaction. Any amount collected beyond the lawful fees, without following the proper procedure, exposes the sheriff to administrative liability for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.