Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > April 2008 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-08-2461 [Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2265-P] : April 23, 2008] BONIFACIO M. CEBRIAN V. ROMEO M. MONTEROSO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, CABADBARAN, AGUSAN DEL NORTE :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 23 April 2008:

"A.M. No. P-08-2461 [Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2265-P] (Bonifacio M. Cebrian v. Romeo M. Monteroso, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte)

Complainant Bonifacio M. Cebrian was the plaintiff in an unlawful detainer case, Civil Case No. 149 in the 3^rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Kitcharao-Jabonga in Agusan del Norte. When he won tha case, he asked for the execution of the judgement and writ of demolition that the court granted. According to Cebrian, respondent Romeo M. Moneroso, who was the court's sheriff, demanded money from Cebrian on several occasions amounting to PhP 5,500. Cebrian said Monteroso personally received PhP 3,500 and Monteroso's wife withdrew PhP 2,000 from the Land Bank in Butuan City that Cebrian deposited in the Land Bank in Cebu City. Despite Cebrian's payments to Monteroso, the latter had not implemented the writ of demolition. Cebrian's ddemand for the return of his money also fell on Monteroso's deaf ears.

Monteroso did not deny he received money Cebrian although he claimed he did not remember the exact amount except the PhP 2,000 withdrawn by his wife from Land Bank. He explained that he had used the money he received from Cebrian for traveling expenses to and from his residence to Jabonga where the property is located when he served the writs of execution and demolition, and the Notice to Vacate. He said he made at least six trips. The trip e explained is about 80 kilometers through the highway and another eight kilometers of bumby road. He said he used 20 liters of gasoline worth PhP 500 for each trip. He also gave PhP 500 to the leader of the demolition team whoom he brought to the property. He averred that at the time he submitted hi Comment, he was still waiting fo the rains to stop to implement the order.

In its investigation and evaluation, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concluded that although Cebrian offered no proof that Monteroso reeived money and did nothing to implement the writs, Monteroso without doubt and by his own admissions violated Section 9, Rule 141 of hte Rules of Court, now Sec. 10, Rule 141, as amended by S.C. A.M. 04-2-04, that provided in part:

x x x the party requesting the process of any court, preliminarily, 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 travel, guard's fees, warehousing and similar charges, in ana 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 thesame period for rendering a return on the process. Any unspent amount shall be refunded making a 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 judgement debtor.

Regrettably, Sheriff Monteroso disregarded the whole procedure laid out in the aforecited rule. Under no circumstance shoul a sheriff, more so should any of hos relatives, receive and keep money for executing a court process from the party. The sheriff has to seek approval of the amount for expenses from the court; have the interested party deposit the amount to the clerk of court or ex-officio sheriff for the latter to disburse the amount to the sheriff; and liquidate the expenses within the period for rendering a return or process.

There are very valid and serious reasons why the procedure in Sec. 9 is meticulously laid out. When it comes to money changing hands in court transactions, court have always adhered to very stringent procedures to assure the public that the judiciary could be trusted. Any possibility of the courts being perceived as dishonest and corrupt erodes public confidence and contraveness the policy on public accountability.

Any conduct of a court employee that is below the very strict standards imposed on employees of the judiciary deserves sanction. A violation of Sec. 9 constitutes not only grave misconduct but also dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Sec. 52(A) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Cases Services considers the dishonesty and grave misconduct of Monteroso a grave offense, punishable by suspension from six (6) months to one (1) year for the first infraction and dismissal for the second infraction. Noting that Monteroso has not been previously administratively sanctioned, the OCA recommends that Monterosobe meted a penalty of suspension of six (6) months.

We agree with the OCA's conclusions and recommendation.

WHEREFORE, this Court finds Romeo M. Monteroso, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34 in Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte, GUILTY of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Service under Sec. 9 (now Sec. 10) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. He is hereby SUSPENDED from office without pay for period of six (6) months from finality of this Resolution.

SO ORDERED.