Sheriff's Ministerial Duty to Execute Writs and the Proper Procedure for Collecting Expenses

The Supreme Court's decision in Go v. Hortaleza (A.M. No. P-05-1971, June 26, 2008) is a useful reminder of two things: a sheriff's duty to enforce a court writ is mandatory, but the manner of collecting the expenses of enforcement is strictly regulated. The case arose from an ejectment dispute and ended with a deputy sheriff suspended for simple misconduct.

What happened

Jorge Go and his spouse were the defendants in an ejectment case before the Municipal Trial Court of Mangaldan, Pangasinan. The MTC ruled against them and later granted the plaintiff's motion for execution. While Go's motion for reconsideration was still pending, Deputy Sheriff Vinez Hortaleza seized and impounded Go's Toyota Corolla, storing it at the Hall of Justice in Dagupan City.

To secure the car's release, Go deposited P161,042.00 with the Office of the Clerk of Court under protest. The MTC eventually denied his motion for reconsideration and ordered the vehicle released. Before releasing it, however, the sheriff demanded P5,000.00 from Go's representative for "expenses" in implementing the writ. He issued only an acknowledgment receipt, not an official receipt. Go's repeated demands for a refund or a proper receipt went unanswered, prompting an administrative complaint for abuse of authority and illegal exaction.

The sheriff's duty to execute a writ

The Court held that the sheriff could not be faulted for proceeding with the execution while the motion for reconsideration was pending, because the judgment sought to be executed was already final and executory and no injunction or temporary restraining order had been issued.

Citing Zarate v. Untalan (A.M. No. MTJ-05-1584, March 31, 2005), the Court stressed that execution is "the fruit and the end of the suit." Once a writ is placed in a sheriff's hands, it becomes his ministerial duty to implement it with reasonable celerity and promptness. That duty is not merely directory but mandatory; the sheriff has no discretion to decide whether to execute the writ or not.

The proper procedure for sheriff's expenses

The sheriff's liability arose from how he collected his expenses. Section 9, Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court requires the following steps:

1. The sheriff estimates the expenses to be incurred.
2. The estimate is submitted to the court for approval.
3. The interested party deposits the approved amount with the Clerk of Court and ex-officio sheriff.
4. The Clerk of Court disburses the amount to the executing sheriff.
5. The sheriff liquidates the expenses within the same period for rendering a return on the writ.

Any unspent amount must be refunded to the depositing party, and the sheriff must submit a full report.

Here, the sheriff demanded and received P5,000.00 directly from the complainant without any estimate or court approval, and kept custody of the money himself instead of coursing it through the Clerk of Court. The Court held that even his later breakdown of expenses could not cure the deviation. It also doubted his claim that he had turned the amount over to the judgment creditor's counsel.

Failure to respond and to issue receipts

The Court found a separate violation of Section 5(a) and (d) of Republic Act No. 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. These provisions require public officials to act promptly on letters and requests within fifteen working days and to attend immediately to the public's personal transactions. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 08-99 (July 2, 1999) reiterates this duty for judiciary personnel. The sheriff ignored the complainant's letter and request for an official receipt.

The ruling

The Court found no clear proof that the sheriff acted with intent to gain, so dishonesty or serious misconduct was not established. His departure from the prescribed procedure constituted simple misconduct, consistent with Danao v. Franco, Jr. (A.M. No. P-02-1569, November 13, 2002). He was suspended for two months without pay, reprimanded for violating R.A. No. 6713, and sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.

Practical takeaways

• A writ of execution must be enforced once issued; absent a restraining order, a sheriff cannot delay or refuse to act.
• Sheriff's expenses cannot be demanded or received directly from a litigant. They must be estimated, approved by the court, deposited with the Clerk of Court, and later liquidated.
• Any unspent amount belongs to the depositing party and must be refunded.
• Court personnel must respond to public letters and requests within fifteen working days and act promptly on personal transactions.
• Litigants who are asked to pay a sheriff directly, without court approval and an official receipt, may raise the matter with the Office of the Court Administrator.

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