Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49746:am-p-05-1990-2007&catid=1494&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 00:19:37+00:00

Document:
A.M. No. P-05-1990 - Benjamin T. Hofer v. Tyrone V. Tan etc.
BENJAMIN T. HOFER, Complainant, v. TYRONE V. TAN, Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, Respondent.
I am submitting herewith my Partial Report in the execution of the Judgment in the above-entitled case.
That the undersigned repaired to the place where the subject matter of this case is situated for the purpose of enforcing the Writ of Execution issued in this case.
That arriving thereat, it was found out that the principal defendants were no longer occupying the subject land as they were now residing at Libongan, Lanao del Norte, but there were three privies of defendants, Sylvia Ludibese, Nantie Tresana and Panchito Eduave who were served with copies of the Writ of Execution last July 22, 2004 and were ordered to immediately vacate the said premises, but considering that we are experiencing bad weather condition and that these privies have small children, I gave them three (3) days from service of the Writ for them to personally vacate the said premises and to remove all their improvements from the subject land.
That, respondent did not come back to finish his work in spite of repeated demands.
In an Indorsement dated 31 August 2004, Judge Rolando S. Venadas, Sr., Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Malaybalay City, referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
In its Report8 dated 28 February 2005, the OCA found that "[r]espondent erred when he personally received the amount of P15,000.00 from the complainant to implement the writ of execution." The OCA recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent be held liable for misconduct and fined P20,000.
In a Resolution dated 13 April 2005, the Court ordered the re-docketing of the case as a regular administrative matter.
The Court issued a Resolution dated 14 June 2006 requiring the parties to manifest if they were willing to submit the case for decision based on the pleadings and records already filed and submitted. Complainant and respondent did not file any manifestation. The Court considers the parties to have waived their compliance with the Resolution dated 14 June 2006.
return in accordance with Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.10 Nor did complainant state when he made the demands on respondent and the period of time respondent refused to perform his duties. Even the OCA, in its Report, did not mention anything about respondent's alleged simple neglect of duty or inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties.
Moreover, in his answer, respondent alleged that he performed his duties: (1) he went to the property several times; (2) he served copies of the writ to the spouses Pansacala's daughter-in-law and privies; (3) he ordered the spouses Pansacala's privies to vacate the property; (4) he checked whether the privies had already vacated the property; (5) he submitted a partial report to Paulito and his counsel; and (6) he submitted an amended partial report to the trial court's clerk of court, to Paulito, and to the latter's counsel.11 He also sent a letter to the provincial director of the Philippine National Police, requesting for assistance in the enforcement of the writ.12 Without substantial evidence to prove that respondent was remiss in the performance of his duties, this Court cannot hold him administratively liable.
The Court, however, finds respondent liable for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Given the nature of the offense and the fact that respondent is not a first time offender, the Court finds the OCA's recommended penalty too light.
June 21, 2004 - Service of Writ of Execution to defendants Sps. Mr. and Mrs. Dionesia Pansacala at Kiharong, Maramag, Bukidnon.
June 22, 2004 - Service of Writ of Execution to defendants' privies and ejectment.
The request of the undersigned for PNP assistance was only for eight (8) PNP members/escorts, but due to the reports of plaintiff's farm laborers to the police authorities that the defendants will violently resist and were fully armed, the PNP Maramag Station, supported the Don Carlos Prov l. Mobile Group peacekeeping force.
July 24, 2004 - Verification as to whether or not defendants' privies have vacated the subject land.
Respondent erred when he personally received the amount of P15,000.00 from the complainant to implement the writ of execution.
[T]he respondent sheriff did not give an estimated expenses [sic] in serving the writ of execution to the interested party. Instead, he demanded and received from the complainant P15,000.00 as expenses in implementing the writ of execution. Respondent sheriff totally disregarded the court's authority to approve the expenses that may be incurred in implementing the writ and the authority of the Clerk of Court to disburse to him the amount that may be spent to effect the process, subject to his liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the process.
This Court condemns any conduct, on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice, which violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes public confidence in the Judiciary.23 Respondent, in the performance of his duties, deviated from the lofty standards of integrity and prudence exacted from officers of the court. It was highly improper for him to demand and accept money from complainant.
[A] sheriff cannot just unilaterally demand sums of money from a party-litigant without observing the proper procedural steps, otherwise, it would amount to dishonesty and extortion.
[R]espondent sheriff did not deny receipt of P500.00 although he tried to explain, albeit unsatisfactorily, that the same represented the legal fees for the service and execution of the writ. Under [Section 10], Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, the procedure for the execution of writs and other processes 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-officio sheriff; fourth, the Clerk of Court shall disburse the amount to the executing sheriff; and fifth, the executing sheriff shall liquidate his expenses within the same period for rendering a return on the writ. Any amount received by the sheriff in excess of the lawful fees allowed by the Rules of Court is an unlawful exaction which renders him liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty.
x x x As regards the P500.00, we agree with both the investigating judge and the OCA that the amount exceeded the lawful fees allowed by the Rules of Court. It constitutes unauthorized fees and unlawful exaction which renders respondent sheriff guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Charging P5,000.00 for every shanty to be demolished in Civil Case No. 22511 and P15,000.00 in Civil Case No. 26374 for the service of the writ of execution without the approval of the court constitutes grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Although the sheriff, in the performance of his duties, is not precluded from collecting additional sums from a requesting party, the same should be subject to approval from the court as provided for in [Section 10] Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. Before an interested party pays the sheriff's expenses, the latter should first estimate the amount to be approved by the court. The approved estimated expenses shall be deposited by the interested party with the Clerk of Court and ex-officio sheriff who shall disburse the amount to the executing sheriff. The latter shall liquidate his expenses within the same period for rendering a return on the writ. (Abalde v. Roque, Jr., 400 SCRA 210 ) Any amount received by the sheriff in excess of the lawful fees allowed by the Rules of Court is an unlawful exaction and renders him liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty (Alvares, Jr. v. Martin, 411 SCRA 248 ). Moreover, any unspent amount shall be refunded to the party who made the deposit.
months and one day to one year for the first offense. Under Section 58,32 the penalty of dismissal carries with it the cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the perpetual disqualification from reemployment in the government service.
Indeed, respondent sheriff was grossly inefficient and guilty of misconduct in implementing the writ on April 16, 2003. He evicted the occupants without ascertaining whether the portion they occupy formed part of the litigated property or not. He was aware that there was uncertainty concerning the property occupied by the Manobos as he even recommended in his partial report that an ocular inspection be conducted. Yet he proceeded with the eviction without the benefit of the inspection to determine the exact boundaries.chanrobles virtual law library The unfortunate incident could have been avoided had the respondent sheriff observed due care and diligence in ascertaining the exact location of the property subject of the execution.
Sheriff Tan not only gravely abused his authority in evicting the Manobos from the property; he also committed misconduct when he demolished the improvements thereon without securing a writ of demolition. As clearly provided under Section 10(d), Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the sheriff must secure a special order of the court before he could destroy, demolish or remove the improvements on the property.
Sheriffs are ranking officers of the court. They play an important part in the administration of justice - execution being the fruit and end of the suit, and the life of the law. In view of their exalted position as keepers of the public faith, their conduct should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court.39 Respondent miserably failed to live up to the high standards required of sheriffs. His impropriety subjected the image of the court to public suspicion and distrust.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Tyrone V. Tan, Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, GUILTY of GRAVE MISCONDUCT, DISHONESTY, and CONDUCT PREJUDICIAL TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE SERVICE. Accordingly,we DISMISS him from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
1 Docketed as Civil Case No. 1407-M, entitled "Paulito R. Hofer v. Mr. and Mrs. Dionesia Pansacala."
9 Pan v. Salamat, A.M. No. P-03-1678, 26 June 2006, 492 SCRA 460, 466.
SEC. 14. Return of writ of execution. - The writ of execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the reason therefore. Such writ shall continue in effect during the period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion. The officer shall make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. The returns or periodic reports shall set forth the whole of the proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and copies thereof promptly furnished the parties.
14 Id. at 7. Annex "1."
17 Tan v. Paredes, A.M. No. P-04-1789, 22 July 2005, 464 SCRA 47, 54-55; Lopez v. Ramos, A.M. No. P-05-2017, 29 June 2005, 462 SCRA 26, 32-33; Adoma v. Gatcheco, A.M. No. P-05-1942, 17 January 2005, 448 SCRA 299, 303; Alvarez, Jr. v. Martin, A.M. No. P-03-1724, 18 September 2003, 411 SCRA 248, 257; Abalde v. Roque, Jr., 448 Phil. 246, 251 (2003); Danao v. Franco, Jr., 440 Phil. 181, 185 (2002).
18 Balanag, Jr. v. Osita, 437 Phil. 452, 458 (2002).
(g) For executing a writ or process to place a party in possession of real PROPERTY OR estates, THREE HUNDRED (P300.00) PESOS per property.
20 Bernabe v. Eguia, A.M. No. P-03-1742, 18 September 2003, 411 SCRA 259, 265-266.
21 Tan v. Paredes, supra note 17 at 55.
23 Danao v. Franco, Jr., supra note 17 at 520.
24 Supra note 17 at 55.
25 A.M. No. P-03-1693, 17 March 2005, 453 SCRA 565, 572.
26 Supra note 17 at 304.
27 A.M. No. P-02-1660, 31 January 2006, 481 SCRA 32.
Section 52. Classification of Offenses. â€• Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
30 Promulgated by the Civil Service Commission through Resolution No. 99-1936 dated 31 August 1999 and implemented by CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999.
Section 53. Extenuating, Mitigating, Aggravating, or Alternative Circumstances. â€• In the determination of the penalties to be imposed, mitigating, aggravating and alternative circumstances attendant to the commission of the offense shall be considered.
Nevertheless, in the appreciation thereof, the same must be invoked or pleaded by the proper party, otherwise, said circumstances shall not be considered in the imposition of the proper penalty. The Commission, however, in the interest of substantial justice may take and consider these circumstances.
34 A.M. No. MTJ-04-1566, 22 August 2005, 467 SCRA 474.
36 A.M. No. P-05-1996, entitled "Estelito R. Marabe v. Tyrone Tan, Sheriff IV, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Malaybalay City."
37 A.M. No. P-04-1786, 13 February 2006, 482 SCRA 265.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.