Florendo vs. Enrile

A sheriff who demands and collects fees far in excess of those lawfully allowed, without issuing official receipts or court approval, and who fails to execute the writ or timely file returns of service, is guilty of grave misconduct, gross dishonesty, serious dereliction of duty, gross inefficiency, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, warranting dismissal.

Cynthia A. Florendo was the prevailing plaintiff in Civil Cases Nos. 9241 to 9249, all for ejectment, decided jointly by Branch 2 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) at Cabanatuan City. Exequiel Enrile was a deputy sheriff of the same MTCC, tasked with the service and implementation of court processes and writs. The lawful sheriff's fee for execution of a writ at the relevant time was P8.00 pursuant to paragraph (g), Section 7, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, later increased to P100.00 by an en banc resolution dated September 4, 1990. Additional expenses for kilometrage, guard's fees, warehousing, and similar charges required court approval and deposit with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, subject to liquidation.

Cynthia A. Florendo was the plaintiff in Civil Cases Nos. 9241 to 9249, all for ejectment, decided jointly by Branch 2 of the MTCC at Cabanatuan City on June 22, 1987. The decision ordered the defendants to vacate the premises and surrender possession to Florendo. The defendants appealed to the RTC, which affirmed the MTCC decision in toto on August 18, 1989. On January 19, 1990, the MTCC issued a writ of execution, which was assigned to respondent Exequiel Enrile, a deputy sheriff of the MTCC, for implementation.

Because the defendants refused to vacate, Florendo sought a writ of demolition, which the court granted on March 21, 1990. On June 27, 1990, the court denied the defendants' motion for extension of time to execute the writ of demolition. For the service and implementation of the writ, respondent asked and received from Florendo and her lawyer, Atty. Edgardo G. Villarin, the total sum of P5,200.00 purportedly as sheriff's fee. Respondent issued no official receipt for this amount. His acknowledgment of the partial payment of P2,700.00 was written on the stationery of Florendo's lawyer; that for P500.00 was handwritten on the stationery of the Office of the City Legal Officer (the same Atty. Villarin); and the remaining P2,000.00 was paid by check drawn by counsel.

Respondent did not execute the writ of demolition despite receipt of the P5,200.00. On November 8, 1990, Florendo's lawyer wrote demanding that respondent either implement the writ or return the sum within ten days, failing which the matter would be elevated to the Supreme Court. Respondent did nothing, prompting Florendo to file the administrative complaint.

In his comment dated June 16, 1992, respondent did not deny collecting P5,200.00 but claimed he had attempted to implement the writ. He stated he returned to the defendants several times to advise them to vacate, and when they refused, he advised counsel to seek a writ of demolition. Upon receiving the writ, he served it on the defendants on July 25, 1990; the latter requested a thirty-day extension. He prepared a return of service dated July 25, 1990. After the extended period expired, he again approached the defendants on September 4, 1990, but was threatened with death—"magkamatayan muna"—if he enforced the writ. He prepared a return of service on that date as well. However, these returns dated July 25, 1990 and September 4, 1990 were filed with the MTCC only on May 29, 1991 and June 6, 1991, respectively—nearly ten months later. On July 8, 1991, Judge Romeo Mauricio referred respondent's return to the Clerk of Court IV and Ex-Officio Sheriff Arsenio S. Vicencio, who confirmed the threat was real and recommended that a new deputy sheriff be assigned. Judge Mauricio then requested that deputy sheriff Teodoro Pineda be assigned to implement the writ.

• Failure to Execute Writ: Complainant charged that respondent collected P5,200.00 as sheriff's fee but failed to enforce the writ of demolition, and she demanded his dismissal from the service.
• No Official Receipt: Complainant pointed out that respondent issued no official receipt for the P5,200.00 collected, with acknowledgments merely written on private stationery.

• Efforts to Implement: Respondent claimed he was not totally remiss in his duties, asserting he returned to the defendants several times to advise them to vacate and that he even approached the City Mayor for relocation of the defendants.
• Death Threats: Respondent maintained he was unable to implement the writ because the defendants threatened him with death, making enforcement too risky.
• No Denial of Collection: Respondent did not deny collecting P5,200.00 but framed it as lawful sheriff's fees.

• Unlawful Exaction: Whether respondent's collection of P5,200.00 without official receipts, far exceeding the lawful fee of P8.00, constituted grave misconduct and gross dishonesty.
• Neglect of Duty: Whether respondent's failure to execute the writ of demolition and his delayed filing of returns of service constituted serious dereliction of duty, gross inefficiency, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
• Adequacy of Recommended Penalty: Whether the penalties recommended by the investigating judge and the OCA were sufficient.
• Mitigating Circumstance: Whether the complainant's conformity to the dismissal of the complaint could be considered a mitigating circumstance.

• Unlawful Exaction: Yes. Any portion of the P5,200.00 in excess of the lawful fees allowed by the Rules of Court constituted an unlawful exaction, rendering respondent liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty.
• Neglect of Duty: Yes. Respondent's failure to execute the writ, his delayed filing of returns, and his failure to report the alleged death threats or seek assistance constituted serious dereliction of duty, gross inefficiency, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
• Adequacy of Recommended Penalty: No. The penalties recommended by both the investigating judge and the OCA were grossly inadequate given the gravity of the offenses; dismissal was the proper penalty.
• Mitigating Circumstance: No. The complainant's conformity to the dismissal of the complaint could not be considered a mitigating circumstance, as administrative cases against public officers cannot be made to depend on the whims of complainants, who are merely witnesses therein.

• Unlawful Exaction: At the time the writ of demolition was placed in respondent's hands, the basic lawful fee was only P8.00 under paragraph (g), Section 7, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, later increased to P100.00 by the Court's en banc resolution of September 4, 1990. While sheriffs may estimate additional expenses for kilometrage, guard's fees, warehousing, and similar charges, such amounts require court approval and must be deposited with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, subject to liquidation, with any unspent amount refunded. Respondent made no report on the P5,200.00 received, issued no official receipt, and sought no court approval. It was obvious he asked for the amount not as lawful fees alone but as consideration for the performance of his duty. The excess over lawful fees was an unlawful exaction constituting grave misconduct and gross dishonesty.

• Neglect of Duty: Section 11 of Rule 39 requires a sheriff to return a writ of execution within not less than ten days nor more than sixty days after receipt, setting forth the whole of his proceedings. Respondent's returns dated July 25, 1990 and September 4, 1990 were filed only on May 29, 1991 and June 6, 1991—either a deliberate and unreasonable delay or an antedating to feign compliance. The Manual for Clerks of Court provides that when a writ is placed in the sheriff's hands, it is his duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it, and that he has no discretion whether to execute it or not. The duty is ministerial, not directory. Respondent's excuse of death threats was unacceptable; had it been true, he should have reported to the MTCC and requested assistance of other sheriffs or law enforcement authorities, or filed a criminal complaint against the defendants. Instead, he filed his returns only after several months had lapsed. For such nonfeasance and misfeasance, he was guilty of serious dereliction of duty, gross inefficiency, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

• Adequacy of Recommended Penalty: The Court rejected both the investigating judge's recommendation of suspension and the OCA's recommendation of a fine equivalent to one month's salary as grossly inadequate. The Court found respondent guilty of five distinct administrative offenses: grave misconduct, gross dishonesty, serious dereliction or neglect of duty, gross inefficiency or incompetence, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The investigating judge's additional recommended penalty of six months' suspension for respondent's "stubborn attitude" in not engaging counsel was also improper, as the judge himself was partly to blame for allowing fifteen scheduled hearings to be cancelled or postponed without proceeding ex parte.

• Mitigating Circumstance: The complainant's conformity to the dismissal of the complaint, found in a motion to dismiss dated February 8, 1994, could not serve as a mitigating circumstance. A complaint for misconduct against a public officer cannot be withdrawn at the whim of the complainant, who is in a real sense only a witness. The need to maintain public faith and confidence in government demands that such proceedings not depend on the caprices of complainants. Moreover, the conformity was based on the ground that respondent had "fully implemented the writ of execution," which was not accurate and which the investigating judge correctly refused to grant.

• Ministerial Duty of Sheriff to Execute Writs — A sheriff's duty to execute a writ is ministerial, not directory. A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. The sheriff has no discretion whether to execute the writ or not; he must proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness. Respondent's failure to implement the writ of demolition, despite having collected fees for that purpose, constituted serious dereliction of duty.

• Unlawful Exaction of Sheriff's Fees — It is an abhorrent and anomalous practice for a sheriff to demand fees in excess of those lawfully allowed. Sheriff's expenses beyond the basic legal fee require court approval, deposit with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, liquidation, and refund of unspent amounts. Collection of fees without official receipts or court approval, in amounts far exceeding lawful fees, constitutes grave misconduct and gross dishonesty.

• Non-Withdrawability of Administrative Complaints Against Public Officers — A complaint for misconduct, malfeasance, or misfeasance against a public officer or employee cannot be withdrawn at any time by the complainant. The complainant is, in a real sense, only a witness. The need to maintain faith and confidence of the people in government demands that proceedings in such cases not be made to depend on the whims and caprices of complainants. The complainant's conformity to dismissal therefore cannot serve as a mitigating circumstance.

• Conduct of Court Personnel Must Be Above Suspicion — The conduct and behavior of everyone connected with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. They must at all times observe propriety and decorum and be above suspicion, for every employee should be an example of integrity, uprightness, and honesty.

• "It is an abhorrent and anomalous practice for a sheriff to demand fees in excess of those lawfully allowed." — This passage, drawn from the Court's citation of Anonuevo vs. Pempena, articulates the canonical formulation of the prohibition against sheriffs exacting unauthorized fees, central to the finding of grave misconduct and gross dishonesty.

• "The duty imposed upon the sheriff to execute the writ is ministerial, not directory. A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of the legal authority, without regard to the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done." — This defines the ministerial nature of a sheriff's duty to execute writs, the foundational principle underlying the finding of neglect of duty and gross inefficiency.

• "A complaint for misconduct, malfeasance, or misfeasance against a public officer or employee cannot just be withdrawn at any time by the complainant and that the need to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the Government and its agencies and instrumentalities demands the proceedings in such cases should not be made to depend on the whims and caprices of the complainants who are, in a real sense, only witnesses therein." — This articulates the doctrine that administrative complaints against public officers are matters of public interest and cannot be terminated by the complainant's unilateral withdrawal, barring the use of such conformity as a mitigating circumstance.

• Active Wood Products, Inc. vs. IAC, 183 SCRA 671 — Cited for the principle that sheriffs must implement or execute court decisions without delay to prevent injury or damage to the winning party and to avoid prejudicing the party's right to speedy justice.
• Anonuevo vs. Pempena, A.M. No. P-93-795 (July 18, 1994) — Cited for the doctrine that it is abhorrent and anomalous for a sheriff to demand fees in excess of those lawfully allowed, and that court personnel must be above suspicion.
• Sy vs. Academia, 198 SCRA 705 (1991) — Cited for the principle that administrative complaints against public officers cannot be withdrawn at the complainant's whim, and that court personnel must be above suspicion.
• Cruz vs. Villarin, 181 SCRA 53 (1990) — Cited in relation to Section 11 of Rule 39 governing the period for returning a writ of execution.
• Young vs. Momblan, 205 SCRA 33 (1992) — Cited for the definition of a ministerial act or duty and the Manual for Clerks of Court provisions on sheriff's duties.
• Lamb vs. Phibbs, 22 Phil. 456 (1912) — Cited as the original source of the definition of a purely ministerial act or duty.

• Section 7(g), Rule 141, Rules of Court — Prescribed the basic sheriff's fee for execution of a writ at P8.00 at the time the writ was placed in respondent's hands, later increased to P100.00 by the Court's en banc resolution of September 4, 1990. Applied to establish that the P5,200.00 collected far exceeded lawful fees.
• Section 11, Rule 39, Rules of Court — Requires a sheriff to return a writ of execution within not less than ten days nor more than sixty days after receipt, setting forth the whole of his proceedings in writing on the back of the writ and filing it with the clerk or judge. Applied to show respondent's delayed filing of returns constituted neglect of duty.
• Manual for Clerks of Court, Chapter IX, Section B(2) — Provides that when a writ is placed in the sheriff's hands, it is his duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it, and that he has no discretion whether to execute it or not. Applied to establish the ministerial nature of respondent's duty.
• Manual for Clerks of Court, Section E(4) — Requires all sheriffs and deputy sheriffs to submit a report to the judge on action taken on all writs and processes within ten days from receipt. Applied to underscore respondent's failure to timely report.

Narvasa, C.J., Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, and Mendoza, JJ., concurred. Feliciano, J., was on leave.