ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. 01-7-485-RTC.September 19, 2001]

RE: ORDER OF JUDGE VICENTE A. HIDALGO

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 19 2001.

A.M. No. 01-7-458-RTC(Re: Order of Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo, Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 37. for the Refund of Legal fees collected in Civil Case No. 00-97779.)

Before us is an administrative matter that stemmed from Civil Case No. 00-97779, entitled Israel C. Rayugal vs. Aurora dela Cruz Cunanan and decided by Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo, RTC-Manila, Branch 37.In that case, Judge Hidalgo ruled in favor of plaintiff Rayugal.Execution of the money judgment was done via garnishment of the amount with the Philippine National Bank.

Legal fees amounting to P825,100.00 were assessed and collected from plaintiff.However, on November 6, 2000, the latter moved that the said amount, which he labeled sheriff's fees, be refunded, since he had already paid a substantially equal amount for filing and docket fees.Plaintiff also alleged that the amount was not deposited to the account of the Clerk of Court of the Manila RTC.In an order dated November 10, 2000, Judge Hidalgo required the Clerk of Court of the Manila RTC to comment on the motion.

In her comment, Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff Atty. Jesusa P. Mani�gas admitted that the subject amount was indeed paid by plaintiff.However, it was not meant to be sheriff's fees but fees due the government per Supreme Court Circulars A.M. No. 99-8-01-SC ¹ Providing for other sources of the Judiciary Development Fund. and A.M. No. 00-2-01-SC. ² Resolution amending Rule 141 (Legal Fees) of the Rules of Court.The Clerk of Court actually cited A.M. No. 00-2-10-SC, but there could have been a typographical error in this number since the latter-Moreover, she alleged that the money had already been deposited in the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).

On December 6, 2000, Judge Hidalgo issued an order allowing the refund of the subject amount.He pointed out that plaintiff had already paid P329,696.00 as filing fee and that to further order him to pay would be unfair and unreasonable.Considering that the amount garnished in the execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 00-97779 did not pass through the Office of the Clerk of Court, there is no justification for the imposition of P825,100.00 as fees.

Manila RTC Executive Judge Mario Guari�a III referred this matter to this Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator, in a letter dated March 27, 2001, inasmuch as it involves an amount already deposited with the JDF.

In a memorandum to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., the OCA, through Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez, stated that the issue of refund may be treated as an administrative matter as it involves the JDF. The OCA explained that the amount of P825,100.00 represents the sheriff's percentage of collection which is allowed by Section 9(1) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. It is distinct from filing fees under Section 7 of the same rule.Payment of filing fees does not preclude payment of the sheriff's percentage of collection, according to the OCA.That the garnished amount was released directly to the judgment creditor will likewise not exempt a party from paying the sheriff's percentage.

A careful consideration of the records leads us to concur with the OCA.

In A.M. No. 99-8-01-SC, this Court declared as part of the JDF the fees authorized to be paid or collected by sheriffs, such as sheriff's commissions. On the other hand, Rule 141, Section 9(1) of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 00-2-01-SC, allows sheriffs and other persons serving processes to collect:

(1) For money collected by him by order, execution, attachment, or any other process, judicial or extrajudicial, the following sums, to wit:

1. On the first four thousand (P4,000.00) pesos, five (5%) per centum

2. On all sums in excess of four thousand (P4,000.00) pesos, two and one-half (2.5%) per centum

The collection of the P825,100.00 is clearly allowed under Section 9(1), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. Further, under A.M. No. 99-8-01-SC, the amount collected shall form part of the JDF. That plaintiff has paid filing fees upon the filing of his complaint is of no moment, since filing fees are distinct and separate from the amount that sheriffs are authorized to collect under Section 9(1), Rule 141, Rules of Court. Filing fees are governed by Section 7 of the same rule.

WHEREFORE, the Order of Judge Vicente A. Hidalgo, Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 37 allowing the refund of P825,100.00 paid by the plaintiff by way of sheriff's fees under Section 9(1), rule 141, Rules of Court, is hereby SET ASIDE for lack of sufficient legal basis.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE