Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila
EN BANC

GERONIMO FRANCISCO,
Petitioner,






- versus -








SEBASTIAN BOLIVAR, Sheriff
IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch
19, Naga City,
Respondent.
A.M. No. P-06-2212
Present:

PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
CARPIO,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO, JR.,
*

NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
BRION,
PERALTA, and
BERSAMIN, JJ.


Promulgated:
July 14, 2009
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x


D E C I S I O N

PERALTA, J .:


Before this Court is a verified complaint dated October 6, 2005 filed by
complainant Geronimo Francisco alleging that respondent Sebastian Bolivar,
Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19 of Naga City, acted with
dishonesty and abuse of authority in implementing the writ of execution in
connection with the judgment rendered by the said court in Civil Case No. RTC-
3811, entitled Geronimo F. Francisco, et al. v. Danilo Soreta, et al.

Herein complainant was one of the plaintiffs in a civil case for damages,
docketed as Civil Case No. RTC-3811, entitled Geronimo F. Francisco, et al. v.
Danilo Soreta, et al., filed with the RTC, Branch 19 of Naga City, where judgment
was rendered in his favor.
[1]
The dispositive portion of the Decision dated October
22, 2003, reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, the Court renders judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and
against the defendants, ordering the latter:

1) to pay plaintiffs the sum of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity for the
death of Cheyserr B. Francisco;

2) to pay plaintiffs the sum of P28,797.10, less the sum
of P10,800.00 already paid to plaintiffs, as actual damages for hospitalization,
medical and funeral expenses;

3) to pay plaintiffs the sum of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages;

4) to pay plaintiffs the sum of P50,000.00 as moral damages;

5) to reimburse plaintiff Geronimo Francisco the sum of P4,200.00,
representing lost income for twenty-one (21) days at P200.00 per day;

6) to pay plaintiffs the sum of P50,000.00 as attorneys fees
and P10,000.00 litigation expense; and

to pay the costs of suit.

SO ORDERED.
[2]


On February 19, 2005, the judgment in Civil Case No. RTC-3811 became
final and executory. On May 13, 2005, the RTC granted therein plaintiffs Motion
for Execution and, on May 23, 2005, issued a Writ of Execution
[3]
of the
judgment. Herein respondent was the Sheriff assigned to implement the writ of
execution.
In his Complaint, complainant alleged that before the writ of execution was
implemented, respondent submitted his Sheriffs Itemized Estimated Account of
Expenses
[4]
dated May 24, 2005 in the total amount of P7,500.00 which he
demanded that complainant deposit in his name with the Office of the Clerk of
Court, RTC, Naga City. However, complainant was able to deposit
only P2,000.00. Respondent then proceeded to lambast and humiliate complainant
at the lobby of the Hall of Justice, Naga City. Respondent, in a loud voice, told
them that they should not talk to the other sheriffs, as he was the only sheriff
assigned to implement the writ. Respondent gave complainant a run-around. On
another occasion, Francisco and his wife approached respondent who was then
taking his snack at a canteen near the court, but the latter angrily told them that the
canteen was not the proper place to discuss about the execution of judgment. After
respondent Sheriff had eaten, they followed him to his office where complainant
and his wife pleaded for the implementation of the writ. Aside from paying
the P2,000.00 already deposited, they offered to shoulder the other expenses during
the actual implementation of the writ, but respondent ignored their
pleas.
[5]
Complainant later discovered that respondent had withdrawn
the P2,000.00. Complainant also gave respondent an additional amount
ofP500.00, which the latter demanded as additional expense. Without a court order,
respondent demanded that complainant file a bond, as there was a third-party
claimant.

On June 6, 2005, as advised by respondent, complainant hired a truck and
three laborers in order to haul properties belonging to the defendants. However,
upon their arrival at the defendants residence, respondent merely listed down and
levied upon defendants properties, attaching two tricycles registered in defendant
Merly Soretas name.
[6]




On June 18, 2005, complainant and therein defendant Merly Soreta entered
into a compromise agreement to reduce the amount of the money judgment
from P232,997.10 to P210,000.00, after which defendant made a partial payment
of P180,000.00. Defendant then executed a promissory note,
[7]
in which she
promised to pay complainant the balance of P30,000.00 as follows: P20,000.00 on
or before August 30, 2005, and P10,000.00 on or before September 15,
2005. However, as of September 13, 2005, when the instant complaint was filed,
defendant had not yet paid the balance of P30,000.00. Respondent also deducted
the amount of P10,000.00 from the partial payment of P180,000.00 without any
explanation as to what expenses it represented.

On June 22, 2005, complainant sent a letter
[8]
to the Presiding Judge of the
RTC, Branch 19 of Naga City, requesting the latter to require respondent to make a
proper liquidation of the expenses incurred in enforcing the writ of execution and
to return the excess amount to complainant.


On July 21, 2005, complainant wrote respondent, demanding, among others,
the return of the excess amount of the sheriffs fees collected within five (5) days;
otherwise, he would file an administrative complaint.

In his Counter-Affidavit
[9]
dated January 17, 2006, respondent denied being
the cause of the delay in the implementation of the writ pursuant to the judgment
rendered by the trial court in Civil Case No. RTC-3811. He claimed that after the
issuance of the writ, he required complainant to deposit the amount of P7,500.00
with the Office of the Clerk of Court to cover incidental expenses, but complainant
deposited only P2,000.00. Respondent added that despite complainants failure to
pay the amount in full, respondent still implemented the writ by attaching two (2)
tricycles belonging to therein defendant Merly Soreta as partial satisfaction of the
judgment. Thereafter, on June 18, 2005, the parties in the civil case agreed to
settle the money judgment in the amount of P210,000.00. Respondent admitted the
existence of the acknowledgment receipt
[10]
dated June 18, 2005covering the
amount of P10,000.00, as evidence of payment by complainant, but claimed that it
was therein defendant who paid the said amount which she borrowed from
complainant because the latter insisted that defendant should pay the balance of the
sheriffs fees. Respondent also averred that the total amount of P12,500.00 he
received was insufficient as shown by the breakdown of expenses. He denied
having knowledge of the complainants expenses because it was the former who
paid for all the expenses. Moreover, respondent stated that he submitted the
itemized breakdown of the expenses to the complainants lawyer, and when
complainant requested a report on the liquidation of expenses, the writ had not yet
been fully satisfied. Respondent insisted that the amount being claimed by
complainant as exorbitant had already been duly liquidated and was covered by a
supplemental breakdown of expenses.

In its Report
[11]
dated May 19, 2006, the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) recommended that respondent Sheriff be found guilty of simple misconduct
and suspended for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay, with a warning that
a repetition of the same or similar acts be dealt with more severely. The pertinent
portions of the said Report state:

In the discharge of the sheriffs duty of enforcing writs issued pursuant to
court orders for which expenses are to be incurred, Section 10 of Rule 141 of the
Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC which took effect on
August 16, 2004, expressly provides:

x x x x

With regard to sheriffs expenses in executing writs
issued pursuant to court orders or decisions or safeguarding the
property levied upon, attached or seized, including kilometrage for
each kilometer of travel, guards fees, warehousing and similar
charges, the interested party shall pay said expenses 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
officio 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. The
liquidation shall be approved by the court. 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 sheriffs expenses shall be taxed as costs against the
judgment debtor. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied).

The clear import of the above-mentioned provision is that the interested
party shall deposit the court-approved estimate of the sheriffs expenses with the
Clerk of Court. The Clerk of Court shall then disburse the same to the executing
sheriff subject to liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the
writ. The liquidation shall then be approved by the court.

Although respondent seemingly observed the procedure laid down under
Section 10 of Rule 141 by submitting an estimate of the expenses and a
liquidation of the same, it appears that he did not completely follow the
procedure. Aside from directly receiving sums of money from the party litigants,
respondent received an amount more than the court-approved sheriffs fees. There
is also no showing that the liquidation of expenses he submitted to the court was
approved.

Record shows that the estimate of expenses amounting to P7,500.00 was
approved by the court. However, respondent admitted that he received the total
amount of P12,500.00 as sheriffs fees. Out of the amount he received, P2,000.00
was disbursed by the Clerk of Court, the rest were received by the respondent
directly from the party litigants. Respondent did not deny demanding and
receiving the additional amount of P500.00 from the complainant. He also
acknowledged receiving the amount of P10,000.00 which he claims to have been
paid by the defendant as sheriffs fees.

Respondent knew fully well, as it was he who submitted the estimate of
expenses to the court, that the amount of P12,500.00 he received is beyond the
court-approved sheriffs fees. His contention that it was the defendant in the civil
case and not herein complainant who paid the amount of P10,000.00 is of no
moment. Likewise, the justification that the amount he received was insufficient
to cover the amount of expenses incurred in the implementation of the writ is
unacceptable. A sheriff may receive only the court-approved sheriffs fees and
acceptance of any other amount is improper. (Bernabe v. Eguia, A.M. No. P-03-
1742, 18 September 2003).

There is also no showing that the court has approved the liquidation of
expenses submitted by the respondent wherein he itemized his expenses in the
implementation of the writ amounting to P13,000.00. Said liquidation is not even
supported by documents. In his counter-affidavit, respondent was only able to
attach two (2) receipts representing payment of guarding fee for the [(2) levied]
units of tricycles and hiring fee for the jeepney used in the implementation of the
writ amounting to P2,000.00 and P1,500.00, respectively. The said receipts are
not sufficient to cover the amount of the expenses that the respondent allegedly
incurred in the implementation of the writ.

x x x x

Respondents act of demanding and receiving sums of money, for
expenses incurred in the implementation of the writ, directly from party- litigants
shows his propensity to disregard the procedural steps in defraying expenses in
the implementation of court processes, which puts at risk the integrity of the
judiciary. Such demand and receipt of money compounded by the fact that he
received an amount exceeding the court-approved sheriffs fees and by submitting
an unsupported liquidation report may arouse suspicion and impression that the
same were received for less than noble purposes.

To our mind, respondents deviation from the procedure of requiring the
party interested to deposit the court-approved sheriffs fees with the Clerk of
Court by directly receiving the same compounded by the fact that he received an
amount more than the court-approved sheriffs fees is clearly a misconduct in
office.
[12]


In a Resolution
[13]
dated February 14, 2007, the Court referred the matter to
the Executive Judge of the RTC, Naga City, for investigation, report and
recommendation within ninety (90) days from notice.

On September 20, 2007, Executive Judge Jaime Contreras submitted his
Report
[14]
which contained the following findings:

The defense of the respondent that the Php10,000.00 which he
received was given to him by the defendants, who borrowed the said amount
from the complainant, as payment for sheriffs expenses per their agreements, do
not evince belief even if said version was corroborated by fellow sheriff, Pielagio
Papa, Jr., and court interpreter, Jesus Almero. Why should the defendants (losing
party) pay for the sheriffs expenses which must be borne by the prevailing party
(complainant)? Such tale was not in accordance [with] the ordinary course of
human nature and experience that the prevailing party, who was not fully satisfied
of the money judgment would still lend money to the losing party just to pay for
the sheriffs expenses.

Further, complainant bewailed the shabby treatment he received and the
conduct or arrogance displayed by the respondent in several occasions thereby
causing him (complainant) embarrassments when he persistently made several
follow-ups for the enforcement of the writ, and the same were as follows: (1) for
seeking the reduction of the court-approved sheriffs estimated expense of
Php7,500.00, (2) for publicly berating the complainant by telling him while at the
lobby of the Hall of Justice that he must not talk with other sheriffs because he
was the only one who could enforce the writ; (3) When he approached the
respondent while the latter was taking his snack at the canteen and respondent
rudely told complainant that such was not the proper place but at their office
where they must talk about the enforcement of the writ.

Receiving money from the litigants without being covered with official
receipt under the guise of sheriffs expenses is an act of dishonesty. So with the
failure of a sheriff to account or liquidate the money he received as sheriffs
expense.

Also, ones conduct to treat a litigant or one with official transactions in
court shabbily, rudely or in a manner that would cause insult, embarrassment or
humiliation, to whom they must serve, is condemnable conduct not befitting of a
public servant.

RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that respondent be held liable as charged
and be penalized with suspension from service for two (2) months without pay
with the admonition to tone his conduct in dealing with the public most especially
court litigants.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

In a Resolution
[15]
dated November 14, 2007, the Court referred the report
dated September 20, 2007 to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation
within thirty (30) days from notice.

On January 18, 2008, the OCA submitted its evaluation, report, and
recommendation
[16]
with the following observation:

The expenses to be incurred by the sheriff in the execution of a judgment
are clearly treated in the Rules of Court. Section 10 of Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC which took effect on August 16,
2004, expressly provides: x x x
x x x x
Verily, the clear import of the above-mentioned provision is that the
interested party shall deposit the court-approved estimate of the sheriffs expenses
with the Clerk of Court. The Clerk of Court shall then disburse the same to the
executing sheriff subject to liquidation within the same period for rendering a
return on the writ. The liquidation shall then be approved by the court.
Although respondent seemingly observed the procedure set forth under
Section 10 of Rule 141 submitting an estimate of the expenses and a liquidation of
the same, it appears that he did not completely follow the procedure. Aside from
directly receiving sums of money from the party litigants, respondent received an
amount more than the court-approved sheriffs fees. There is also no showing that
the liquidation of expenses he submitted to the court was approved.

Record shows that the estimate of expenses amounting to P7,500.00 was
approved by the court. However, respondent admitted that he received the total
amount of P12,500.00 as sheriffs fees. Out of the amount received, P2,000.00
was disbursed by the Clerk of Court, the rest was received by the respondent
directly from the party-litigants. Respondent did not deny demanding and
receiving the additional amount of P500.00 from the complainant. He also
acknowledged receiving the amount of P10,000.00 which he claims to have been
paid by the defendant as sheriffs fees. This contention, however, was found by
the investigating judge to be perplexing and contrary to human experience.

It was, likewise, noted that there is no showing that the court has approved
the liquidation of expenses submitted by the respondent wherein he itemized his
expenses in the implementation of the writ amounting to P13,000.00. Said
liquidation is not even supported by documents. In this counter-affidavit,
respondent was only able to attach two (2) receipts representing payment of
guarding fee for the two (2) levied units of tricycles and hiring fee for the
[jeepneys] used in the implementation of the writ amounting to P2,000.00
and P1,500.00, respectively. The said receipts are not sufficient to cover the
amount of the expenses that the respondent allegedly incurred in the
implementation of the writ.

x x x x

Respondents act of demanding and receiving sums of money, for
expenses incurred in the implementation of the writ, directly from party-litigants
shows his disregard of procedural steps in defraying expenses in the
implementation of court processes. This puts at risk the integrity of the judiciary.
Such demand and receipt of money compounded by the fact that he received an
amount exceeding the court-approved sheriffs fees, and the submission of an
undocumented liquidation report created suspicion and the impression that the
same were received for less than noble purposes. The respondents deviation from
procedure compounded by his receipt of an amount more than that which the
court approved is clearly misconduct in office.

Finally, during the investigation it was found by the investigating judge
that respondent likewise acted in a hostile way in dealing with complainant
concerning the progress of the execution of the decision. While the matter was not
included in the complaint and respondent was not able to file his comment
thereon, this Office deems it wise to call nonetheless the attention of respondent
regarding his manners in dealing with the public and court users. It is believed
that the finding made as a result of an investigation participated in by respondent
can rightfully be made an additional basis for administrative penalty.

Wherefore, premises considered, the undersigned most respectfully
recommends that respondent Sebastian Bolivar, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch
19, Naga City after having been found guilty of simple misconduct in office be
penalized with SUSPENSION for One (1) Month without pay with STERN
warning that the commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.

In a Resolution
[17]
dated February 20, 2008, the Court required the parties to
manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for decision on the basis of
the pleadings/records already filed and submitted within ten (10) days from notice,
to which the respondent complied on April 14, 2008 and, likewise, the complainant
on May 30, 2008.

The Court modifies the recommendation of the OCA.

Respondent alleged that complainant refused to reimburse the expenses he
incurred in implementing the writ, and that it was only after the parties had entered
into a compromise agreement that complainant agreed to pay
respondent P10,000.00 on behalf of therein defendant.

On the other hand, complainant stated that aside from giving the P2,000.00
which he and his wife deposited with the trial court on May 26, 2005, he gave
respondent an additional amount of P500.00 on June 6, 2005 for the
implementation of the writ. Moreover, complainant pointed out that he offered to
shoulder the other expenses and even rented a truck, then again paid
respondent P10,000.00 on June 18, 2005.

The Court is more inclined to believe the complainants contention. The
procedure for payment and liquidation of sheriffs expenses is provided under
Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.
[18]
Thus,

SEC. 10. Sheriffs, process servers and other persons serving processes.
x x x

With regard to sheriffs expenses in executing writs issued pursuant to
court orders or decisions, or safeguarding the property levied upon, attached or
seized, including kilometrage for each kilometer of travel, guards fees,
warehousing and similar charges, the interested party shall pay said expenses 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 officio 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. The liquidation shall be
approved by the court. 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 sheriffs expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgment
debtor.

The said provision clearly states that it is the interested party, herein
complainant, who shall pay the sheriffs expenses and deposit the same with the
clerk of court. In the present case, however, respondent would like the Court to
believe that the P10,000.00 he received was for the payment of defendants loan
from complainant. His explanation is implausible. There would be no reason for
the defendant to pay respondent in order to effect the levy on execution on his own
property. Moreover, the receipt for the saidP10,000.00 confirms that payment was
made by complainant.

Even assuming that the payment of P10,000.00 was made on behalf of the
defendant, respondent acknowledged having received a total of P12,500.00 as
sheriffs expenses. The estimated expenses which he submitted to and were later
approved by the RTC amounted to only P7,500.00, which reveals that complainant
had, in fact, overpaid him byP2,500.00. While respondent was able to submit a
Liquidation of Expenses
[19]
dated August 30, 2005 in which he claimed to have
spent P13,000.00, he was only able to present two receipts
[20]
to prove his
expenses: (1) P1,500.00 issued on June 6, 2005 as rent for the jeep hired to haul
objects and (2) P2,000.00 issued on July 1, 2005 as guarding fee for two (2)
tricycles. Notably, it does not appear that said liquidation was approved by the
RTC. Respondent has undoubtedly violated Section 4, Canon I of the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel,
[21]
which provides that court personnel shall not
accept any fee or remuneration beyond what they receive or are entitled to in their
official capacity. Respondent failed to substantiate that the expenses amounting
to P9,500.00, without receipts to qualify the same, was actually incurred and duly
accounted for.

Respondent likewise did not follow the correct procedure under Section 10,
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court and exceeded the scope of his duties. Aside from
receiving an amount more than the stated estimated expenses, he collected sums of
money directly from the party litigants instead of coursing them through the clerk
of court. Without a court order, he allowed the parties to enter into a compromise
agreement, and as a consequence thereof, the money judgment in favor of the
complainant was reduced. There is also no showing that he rendered a sheriffs
report to clear himself from any accountability. During trial, respondent testified:

ATTY. CAAYAO:

Did you hear or were you able to get the statement just manifested a while
ago by your counsel about your role as sheriff?

RESPONDENT:

Yes, it is ministerial.

Q: Meaning, you have no discretion?
A: Nothing.

Q: Will you agree with me that on June 18, 2005 you allowed partial payment
of the monetary obligation of the judgment?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Is that an exercise of discretion?
A: I think that is not an exercise of discretion because

x x x x

COURT:

Continue with your answer.

A: On that date, it was the idea of the plaintiffs counsel to initiate that both
parties must meet at plaintiffs [counsels] office, so I did really contacted
(sic) the plaintiff and the defendant so that both minds will meet.

ATTY. CAAYAO:

Q: In whose instinct was that agreement discussed?
A: It was called for by Atty. Luis Ruben General that plaintiff and defendant
must meet so we decided that since the prevailing party was his client we
must go on with the discussion at his counsels office.

Q: As Sheriff, do you not know that your powers are limited to the faithful
execution of the courts orders?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Did you faithfully execute the courts order that you implement the
decision?
A: Yes, sir.

Q: Were you able to collect the entire amount due complainant on June 18,
2005?
A: Not yet.

Q: So you did not faithfully comply with the execution of the order?
A: I complied, he complied, both parties complied because when we were
already at his counsels office, Atty. General told us okay, let us discuss
the matter so that if matters are all in place, let me know. I will just go out
of my office. When we agreed to a certain idea beneficial to both parties,
we informed Atty. General already.

Q: Did it not occur to your mind that by acceding to a partial payment of the
monetary judgment you were extending undue favor to the defendant?
A: No, sir.

Q: But you are aware as Sheriff that you have no discretion to receive partial
payment?
A: No discretion, sir.

Q: But yet you agreed to the payment of partial payment?
A: It was agreed by both parties, something of that kind.
[22]


In De La Cruz v. Bato,
[23]
the Court held that a sheriffs duty in the execution
of the writ is purely ministerial. He is to execute the order of the court strictly to
the letter,
[24]
and has no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not.
[25]
As
an officer tasked with the administration of justice, he is also expected to
expeditiously enforce rules and implement orders of the court within the limits of
his authority. Clearly, respondent deviated from the mandated duties and
responsibilities expected of him in the implementation of the writ of execution.

Lastly, complainant claimed that he had been humiliated and lambasted by
respondent. In his Affidavit
[26]
dated May 28, 2007, he alleged that:

7. x x x There were times when I and my wife were seen by respondent
talking with some court personnel at the court lobby. Then and there, respondent
sheriff berated us in public in a loud voice that we should not talk to other
sheriffs as he is the only existing sheriff that could implement the writ. At one
time, we saw respondent sheriff taking his snack at a canteen near the court and
courteously approached him, but as we approached he angrily told us that the
canteen was not the proper place to discuss the matter regarding execution. We thus
waited. When respondent sheriff was done eating his snack, we followed him to his
office where again we pleaded for the implementation of the writ. We thus offered
him that aside from the P2,000.00 already deposited, we will just shoulder the other
expenses during the actual implementation of the writ. But respondent simply
ignored our pleas; x x x

In his Affidavit
[27]
dated July 17, 2007, respondent denied that the execution
of the writ had been delayed, without refuting complainants allegation about his
abrasive behavior.

Indeed, at the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs and deputy
sheriffs are indispensably in close contact with the litigants; hence, their conduct
should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court, for
the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or
otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the least
and lowest of its personnel; hence, it becomes the imperative sacred duty of each
and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a temple of
justice.
[28]
Respondents discourtesy and braggadocio in dealing with complainant
and his wife with regard to an official matter should not be tolerated. The Court
will not allow respondent to use his position to throw his weight around when
dealing with party-litigants like herein complainant.

In addition, respondent failed to abide by Section 2, Canon IV of the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel, which states that court personnel shall carry out their
responsibilities as public servants in as courteous a manner as possible.
[29]


The Court has declared that lapses in procedure, coupled with unlawful
exaction of unauthorized fees, are equivalent to grave misconduct and dishonesty.
Herein respondents conduct of unilaterally demanding sums of money from a
party-litigant, herein complainant, purportedly to defray expenses of execution,
without obtaining the approval of the trial court for such purported expense and
without rendering an accounting, constitutes dishonesty and extortion and falls
short of the required standards of public service. Such conduct threatens the very
existence of the system of administration of justice.
[30]
Moreover, by completely
disregarding the proper procedure for implementation of the writ of execution and
failing to notify the trial court of the compromise agreement entered into between
the complainant and therein defendant in the subject civil case, respondent also
committed abuse of authority or oppression, which the Court has defined as an act
of cruelty, severity, or excessive use of authority.
[31]


As to the penalty to be imposed, the Investigating Judge recommended that
respondent be suspended from the service for two (2) months, while the OCA
recommended one (1) month suspension. Respondent having been found liable by
the Court for dishonesty and abuse of authority or oppression, the corresponding
penalty under Section 52(A)(1) and (14) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service Commission
[32]
would be dismissal.

In the following cases where therein respondent sheriffs were first-time
offenders -- in De Guzman, Jr. v. Mendoza
[33]
for grave misconduct and
dishonesty; Adoma v. Gatcheco
[34]
for grave misconduct, dishonesty and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service; Apuyan, Jr. v. Sta. Isabel
[35]
for grave
misconduct, dishonesty and conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the
service; and Albello v. Galvez
[36]
for dishonesty -- the Court meted the penalty of
one (1) year suspension.

However, this is not the first time that an administrative complaint has been
filed against respondent. Upon verification from the OCA, we found that
respondent was charged with grave abuse of authority, which was dismissed in a
Resolution dated October 17, 2006 (Third Division).
[37]
To date, there is also a
pending administrative case
[38]
against respondent for violation of Republic Act No.
6713 and dereliction of duty, which has been referred to the OCA for evaluation,
report and recommendation and is awaiting its appropriate action. The frequency
of his offenses demonstrates respondents tendency to wilfully and deliberately
exceed the scope of his functions as exhibited by his uncalled for remarks and
arrogance in dealing with party-litigants, like herein complainant. In view of
respondents propensity to violate the Rules of Court and the Code of Conduct for
Court Personnel, the Court deems it appropriate to impose upon him the penalty of
suspension for a period of two (2) years for dishonesty and grave abuse of
authority in the implementation of the writ of execution with regard to Civil Case
No. RTC-3811, instead of the penalty of dismissal.

WHEREFORE, respondent Sebastian Bolivar, Sheriff IV of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 19, Naga City, is found GUILTY of dishonesty and grave
abuse of authority and is hereby SUSPENDED from the service without pay for a
period of two (2) years, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar
acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

This Decision shall be immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.


DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice



WE CONCUR:



REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice




LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice



CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice




ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice




RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice




CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice




MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice







PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice







ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice




TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice




ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice




LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice