A.M. No. P-09-2627
REINA EDENLYNE GARCIA vs. ROBERT V. ALEJO, Sheriff IV,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 142, Makati City,
A.M. No. P-09-2627, January 26, 2011
x x x.
The Court’s Ruling
We adopt the recommendation of the OCA.
Pertinent portions of Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court read:
Section 9. Sheriffs and other persons serving processes. – x x x In addition to the fees hereinabove fixed, the party requesting the process of any court, preliminary, incidental, or final, shall pay the sheriff’s expenses in serving or executing the process, or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel, guard’s fees, warehousing and similar charges, in an amount estimated by the sheriff, subject to the approval of the court. Upon approval of said estimated expenses, the interested party shall deposit such amount with the clerk of court and ex-oficio sheriff, who shall disburse the same to the deputy sheriff assigned to effect the process, subject to liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the process. Any unspent amount shall be refunded to the party making the deposit. A full report shall be submitted by the deputy sheriff assigned with his return, and the sheriff’s expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor.
A sheriff may collect fees for his expenses from the party requesting the execution of a writ but only in accordance with the procedure laid down in the aforecited provision.
Clearly, the steps that have to be followed before additional sums may be required are: first, the sheriff must make an estimate of the expenses to be incurred by him; second, he must obtain court approval for such estimated expenses; third, the approved estimated expenses shall be deposited by the interested party with the Clerk of Court and ex-oficio sheriff; fourth, the Clerk of Court shall disburse the amount to the executing sheriff; and fifth, the executing sheriff shall disburse liquidate his expenses within the same period for rendering a return on the writ.12
Sheriffs are not allowed to receive any voluntary payments from parties in the course of the performance of their duties. To do so would be inimical to the best interest of the service because even assuming arguendo such payments were indeed given and received in good faith, this fact alone would not dispel the suspicion that such payments were made for less than noble purposes. Sheriffs cannot receive gratuities or voluntary payments from parties they are ordered to assist.13 Court personnel shall not accept any fee or remuneration beyond what they receive or are entitled to in their official capacity.14
The Court notes the OCA’s finding about Alejo’s receipt of voluntary payments:
x x x It must be noted that [Alejo] failed to refute [Garcia’s] allegations that in six (6) instances (the five instances were listed in the summary of expenses of Concorde and the one instance where in the cash voucher of the amount of P12,500.00 was signed by [Alejo] himself), he received sheriff’s fees in the total amount of P85,000.00 without court approval. In fact, he never categorically denied having received said fees. He did not even question the veracity of the summary of expenses presented by [Garcia]. Instead, in order to prove that his actions were above board he merely submitted a copy of the Sheriff’s Commission on Sale duly collected and duly receipted by the Office of the Clerk of Court of RTC Makati City but which was never raised as an issue in the complaint.15
Moreover, Alejo received money for extra work he rendered for Concorde. Alejo’s defense that he is not using government time in doing his duties is not tenable considering that there is a prohibition for all officials and employees of the judiciary to engage directly in any private business, vocation or profession even outside office hours.16 Alejo’s acts can be considered as moonlighting, which, though not normally considered as a serious misconduct, amounts to malfeasance in office.17
Thus, for failure to observe the procedure in Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, Alejo is guilty of dereliction of duty. Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dereliction of duty calls for a suspension of one month and one day to six months.18 Alejo’s moonlighting activities, on the other hand, constitute violation of reasonable office rules and regulations of which reprimand is the penalty for the first offense, suspension for 1-30 days for the second offense, and dismissal for the third offense. According to Section 55 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, if the respondent is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge or count and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances. Alejo also had been previously admonished in A.M. No. P-08-2428 for abuse of authority. We modify the OCA’s recommendation of suspension for a period of three months without pay to suspension for a period of six months without pay.
WHEREFORE, Robert V. Alejo, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 142, Makati City, is SUSPENDED for six (6) months without pay for dereliction of duty and violation of office rules and regulations as well as the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. Alejo is also STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
