Case Digest: A. RODRIGUEZ v. V. P. APOSAGA, JR., A.M. No. P-03-1671, 31 January 2005

ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ v. VICENTE P. APOSAGA, JR., A.M. No. P-03-1671, 31 January 2005

By 1st Indorsement of February 8, 2002, the Department of Justice (DOJ) referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action a letter of herein complainant Antonio Rodriguez (Rodriguez) requesting assistance in the execution of the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga in his favor. It was alleged that Vicente P. Aposaga, Jr., Sheriff IV of the said court, asked for P10,000.00 for the execution of the said decision.
Rodriguez, however, paid no heed to Aposaga‘s request. Consequently, Aposaga could not implement the writ of execution. With the help of a “common friend” who was aware of his predicament, Aposaga proceeded to cause the registration of the Notice of Levy on the judgment debtor‘s property. The Court arrived to the conclusion that what Aposaga was doing is a violation of Section 9, Rule 141 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Sheriff Aposaga violated Section 9 of Rule 141

HELD:

Based on the foregoing, Aposaga has clearly shown a grave disregard of pertinent provisions of the rules with respect to the collection of legal fees or expenses to which a sheriff is entitled. He committed a serious infraction of the above-mentioned provision by demanding directly from complainant the amount of P10,000.00 (which fact Sheriff Aposaga, Jr. admitted) for the annotation of the levy on execution of the property of the judgment debtor, without the requisite authority of the court. As sheriff he is duty bound to know at least these very basic rules relative to the implementation of writs of execution. What is worthy of note is that Aposaga has been a deputy sheriff for more than twelve years. Surely, Aposaga ought to have known the correct/proper procedure to be followed in requesting for expenses from a judgment creditor in order to ensure proper administration of justice especially in its concluding stage. In sum, the gravamen of Aposaga‘s shortcoming is in his failure to observe Sec. 9 of Rule 141.
The party requesting the process of any court, preliminary, 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 of travel, guards‘ fees, warehousing and similar charges, 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- oficio 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. 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 sheriff‘s expenses shall be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor.
In Aposaga‘s case, instead of preparing an estimate of expenses to be incurred in implementing the writ of execution and thereafter securing the court‘s approval thereof, he verbally estimated the expenses and directly conveyed the same to the judgment creditor-complainant.