This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2011-08-02 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It must be stressed that sheriffs are not allowed to receive any voluntary payments from parties in the course of the performance of their duties. Corollary, 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 or extortion.[4] Even assuming 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. Neither will complainant's acquiescence or consent to such expenses absolve the sheriff for his failure to secure the prior approval of the court concerning such expense.[5] | |||||
|
2007-07-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| x x x [A] sheriff is guilty of violating the Rules if he fails to observe the following: (1) preparing an estimate of expenses to be incurred in executing the writ, for which he must seek the court's approval; (2) rendering an accounting; and (3) issuing an official receipt for the total amount he received from the judgment debtor.[18] In his answer, respondent attempted to justify his actions by showing that he used the money to defray the costs of the partial execution of the writ. Even assuming this were true, respondent would still be liable. Respondent, as an officer of the court and agent of the law, should be aware that there are well-defined steps in the execution of writs. A sheriff can only accept payment for sheriff's fees as provided in Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.[19] Acceptance of any other amount is improper, even if it were to be applied for lawful purposes. As this Court held:Good faith on the part of the sheriff, or lack of it, in proceeding to properly execute its mandate would be of no moment, for he is chargeable with the knowledge that being the officer of the court tasked therefor, it behooves him to make due compliances. In the implementation of a writ of execution, only the payment of sheriff's fees may be received by sheriffs. They 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 interests 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. In fact, even "reasonableness" of the amounts charged, collected and received by the sheriff is not a defense where the procedure laid down in [Section 10], Rule 141 of the Rules of Court has been clearly ignored. Only the payment of sheriff's fees can be lawfully received by a sheriff and the acceptance of any other amount is improper, even if it were to be applied for lawful purposes.[20] (Emphasis supplied) Sheriffs are not allowed to receive any payments from the parties in the course of the performance of their duties. They cannot just unilaterally demand sums of money from the parties without observing the proper procedural steps.[21] In this case, respondent demanded and received P15,000 directly from complainant without approval from the trial court. The acquiescence of complainant to such expenses does not absolve the respondent of his failure to secure the trial court's prior approval.[22] | |||||
|
2007-02-14 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In several cases[16] involving neglect of duty, the Court finds it proper to impose a fine of P5,000.00 on erring court personnel. However, considering that in a minute resolution of March 21, 2001, the Court reprimanded respondent for neglect of duty with a warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely,[17] we find it appropriate to impose a fine of P10,000.00 with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Under Sec. 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, simple neglect of duty is punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense. However, under Sec. 19, Rule XIV, the penalty of fine, instead of suspension, may also be imposed in the alternative. Considering the fact that this is respondent's first administrative offense and following the Court's ruling in several cases[31] involving simple neglect of duty, we find the penalty of a fine in the amount of P5,000.00, as recommended by the Investigating Judge, just and reasonable. | |||||