In 2011 Sheriff Abe Andres was punched several times by the mayor for insisting on

demolishing houses inside a contested property in Barangay Soliman in Agdao district in Davao.

Andres was explaining that he was just implementing an order issued by Judge Emmanuel
Carpio of the Regional Trial Court’s Branch 16 when the mayor suddenly threw punches.

Andres was rushed to the hospital after the incident.

No cake walk

BASED on the study of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), being a sheriff is never a
walk in the park due to many challenges and difficulties they have to confront in performing
their duties.

Like in serving summons to individuals, the Court ratiocinated in the case of Manotoc v. Court
of Appeals that, in the absence of the person named in the summons, there must be three attempts
to serve summons on separate days before authorities can resort to “substituted service.”

“The question posed is whether the three attempts are still viable or [take] too much time,” the
study said.

With regard to serving summons to a corporation, Rule 14, Section 11 of the Rules of the Court
requires that service upon a domestic corporation, partnership or association organized under the
laws of the Philippines with a juridical personality may be made on the president, managing
partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer or in-house counsel.

However, oftentimes these executives cannot be found in their respective offices or intentionally
avoid service of court processes. Thus, sheriffs find it difficult to serve summons on these
individuals, the study noted.

“Based on the experiences of sheriffs in the performance of their duties, some party litigants are
not providing an exact location of the place of persons to be given summons, which makes it
difficult for the officers to locate where they will serve their summons,” the study said.

The study added that serving summons to persons who live in private subdivisions can also be
difficult as security guards refuse to let sheriffs in. Doing so impedes sheriffs from performing
tasks the court ordered them to undertake.

Garnishment, mortgage

IN cases involving garnishment, the report said sheriffs would usually encounter difficulty
performing their tasks as some banks would refuse to receive notices. In law, garnishment is a
court order directing that money or property of a third party (usually wages paid by an employer)
be seized to satisfy a debt owed by a debtor to a plaintiff creditor. Sometimes sheriffs are
referred to the head office. This adds to the cost and time spent on certain cases.
There are also challenges being encountered by sheriffs in cases involving foreclosure of real-
estate mortgage.

“Relevant laws and rules, especially on the acts pertaining to rural banks and thrift banks,
exemptions in the law given to corporations, partnerships and associations prevent the sheriffs
from performing their jobs,” the study added.

Sometimes, sheriffs are caught in violence during the performance of their duties. These cases
usually involve ejectment, demolition or writ of possession.

The study noted that some police officers or majority of police officers “are reluctant to assist the
sheriff in the implementation of the writ especially in ejectment cases because they do not know
the procedural aspect of ejectment and they do not want to be in the frontline.”

Sheriffs also confront lengthy and complex procedures in seeking police assistance.

Threats, reports

IN cases of replevin or repossession, the report said those who possess the object subject to
replevin usually resist and issue grave threats against sheriffs.

In implementing writs of execution, sheriffs also confront numerous difficulties such as strong
amount of resistance from defendants/respondents in implementation of demolition orders. They
are also threatened with bodily harm.

“In cases involving enforcement of payment of money judgment, there is also continuous
enforcement of the writ despite exhausting all legal remedies and the defendant has no capability
to settle the money judgment,” the study said.

There are also voluminous writs of small claims cases, collection of sum money and other writs
to be served and to be enforced that sheriffs pursue. Still they have to submit a report to the court
every 30 days and proceed to take care of the matter until the judgment is satisfied in full.

There are also difficulties in requesting for police assistance in the implementation of writ,
according to the report.

Low budget

IF actual physical harm, threats and harassments are absent, sheriffs have to make do with
insufficient budget for serving extrajudicial foreclosure.

The legal fee of sheriffs is also insufficient, especially for those in the province of Mindanao, the
OCA study said.

“In serving summons, several attempts must be made to effectively serve the defendants,” the
report said. “But sometimes problems arise when additional expenses are incurred in case of
outside summons to be served in certain jurisdictions.”
The report explained these problems arise as requests for additional funds must be accompanied
by postal money order (PMO) endorsed by the Branch Clerk of Court.

“But the OIC [officer in charge] Clerk of Court is the one endorsing the PMO for encashment
with the Postal Office. Then it is deposited with the [Landbank of the Philippines] and the
sheriffs must prepare a ‘Sheriff’s Estimated Travel Expenses’ to be approved by the Clerk of
Court and the Executive Judge.”

The meandering path to secure the funds doesn’t stop there.

The OCA study said once approved by the Clerk of Court and the Executive Judge, the deposited
funds have to be withdrawn and given to the deputy sheriff who will serve the summons.

“This process entails a lot of delays in serving the said processes,” the study said.

Role in the judiciary

DATA obtained from the OCA showed that currently the number of sheriffs employed in the
different courts in the country has reached 1,433.

In the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) there are about 131 sheriffs; Municipal Trial Court
(MTC), 240; Regional Trial Court (RTC) about 1,057; and Shari’a Court, 5.

Sheriffs’ roles and duties differ depending on what court they are assigned to.

Those assigned in the RTC-Office of the Clerk of Court of a Multiple Sala Court are ranked
Sheriff 4, Sheriff 5 and Sheriff 6.

These sheriffs are tasked to serve or execute all writs and processes of the courts and other
agencies, both local and foreign. They also keep custody of attached properties or goods.

RTC sheriffs are also obliged to maintain his or her own record book on writs of execution, writs
of attachment, writs of replevin, writs of injunction and all other processes he or she undertakes.

Duties, qualifications

THESE sheriffs are also tasked to submit periodic reports to the Clerk of Court and perform
related tasks and other duties that may be assigned by the Executive Judge and/or Clerk of Court.

Sheriffs assigned in the MeTC and MTC also perform the same duties and functions as their
counterparts in the RTCs.

The pertinent provisions of the Judiciary Law regarding the number, qualifications, appointment,
compensation, functions duties and other matters relative to the personnel of the RTCs apply to
those of the Shari’a District Courts.
In order to land a post as a sheriff in the RTC, one must have at least two years of college
education, at least one year relevant experience or training and must complete 4 to 24 hours of
relevant training.

For Shari’a courts, among the qualifications needed for those eyeing a sheriff post are
completion of two years college education and a career-service eligibility.

Grassroots role

A per curiam (unanimous) decision of the Supreme Court considered sheriffs as the “grassroots
of judicial machinery” since their “duties and functions put them in close contact with litigants.”

The SC added that the performance of their duties is vital in shaping the public’s perception of
the judiciary.

Being so, sheriffs are expected to perform their duties honestly and efficiently.

The High Tribunal said it will not tolerate any misconduct that would diminish the image and
integrity of the judiciary.

In line with this, the SC ordered the dismissal from the service of Sheriff 4 Antonio Leaño Jr. of
the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City; Sheriff 3 Benjamin
Lacsina of the Office of the Clerk of Court of MTC in Cities, Tarlac City; and, Sheriff 3 Alvin
Pineda of Branch 2 of the MTC in Cities, Tarlac City.

The three were found guilty of gross neglect and gross inefficiency in the performance of official
duties.

Case vs. sheriffs

THE case against the gentlemen from Tarlac City stemmed from the complaint filed by lawyer
Augusto Santos, attorney-in-fact of the heirs of the late Lucio Gomez.

Santos filed an ejectment case on behalf of the heirs of Gomez against various informal settlers
occupying their lot in Barangay Binauganan, Tarlac City.

The ejectment cases were filed before Branch 1 of the MTC of Tarlac City.

After summary hearing, Santos obtained a favorable judgment. A writ of execution was issued
pursuant to the finality of the trial court’s decision.

Santos claimed that he asked Sheriff Danilo Ibarra to implement the special writ of demolition.
But Ibarra was reluctant to perform it due to physical condition.

The complainant said he was referred instead to Lacsina and later to Leaño.
Santos claimed that the two sheriffs required him to deposit P200,000 to cover the sheriffs’
expenses such as food and travel allowance and salaries of the demolition crew.

He alleged that he deposited the amount with the trial court and the amount was withdrawn.
However, no demolition occurred.

Subsequently, the respondents in the ejectment case managed to obtain a writ of preliminary
injunction before Branch 63 of the MTC. The cases, however, were affirmed on appeal before
Branch 64 of the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City.

In light of Branch 64’s decision, Branch 63 lifted the writ of preliminary injunction and the
records of the cases were remanded to Branch 1 of the MTC for execution.

Promises, promises

SANTOS said he asked Ibarra and Lacsina anew to implement the decision.

He recounted that the two sheriffs were reluctant to implement the decision. Ibarra cited his
illness and impending retirement, while Lacsina stated the informal settlers were known to him
as members of Iglesia ni Cristo, the same religious sect he belongs to.

Santos was then referred to Leaño for the implementation of the decision.

The complainant alleged that Leaño gave him an itemized list of expenditures when they met in a
restaurant in Tarlac. According to Santos, Leaño required him to pay half of the expenses with
the assurance that a demolition team would be assembled in time for the actual demolition.

Santos subsequently paid Leaño the amount of P100,000 as partial payment aside from P200,000
which he gave to a certain Eddie Reyes, the person Leaño designated to lead the demolition.
Lacsina and Pineda also received a day before the supposed demolition their per diems
amounting to P11,000 for them to show up at the site.

Santos claimed that Leaño told him the demolition would take place in February 2011 and that
he requested P25,000 for the food and transportation of the demolition crew.

Despite paying all the amounts requested, Santos said the writ of demolition was not
implemented.

Leaño then promised to implement the writ of demolition two weeks after. But no demolition
occurred, which prompted Santos to file a case against the three sheriffs.

Guilty verdict

THE Office of the Court Administrator found the three sheriffs guilty of gross neglect and gross
inefficiency in the performance of official duties.
It noted that while the estimated expense for the demolition were approved by the trial court,
respondents failed to itemize and liquidate the expenses for the demolition and to issue official
receipts upon receiving complainant’s money.

The SC adopted the findings and recommendations of the OCA.

It held: “Considering the numerous infractions committed by respondents, the proper penalty to
be imposed upon them is dismissal from service. The judiciary is not obliged to keep dishonest,
neglectful and disobedient personnel within its ranks.”

The case only proves that sheriffs would not always fall victim in efforts to implement court
orders.

Other cases would show that some have been penalized for various offenses committed in the
guise of performing their duties.

Their common offenses range from simple neglect of duty to gross neglect of duty and
dishonesty.

Dizon, Zaragoza

THERE’S also the case of Ricardo Dizon, Sheriff III of the MeTC of Mandaluyong City Branch
59, who was found guilty of simple neglect of duty in 2008 and was imposed a fine of P20,000.

The case against Dizon stemmed from the complaint of MeTC Branch 59 Presiding Judge Ofelia
Calo and a certain Pablea Tamayo.

In the said case, Dizon received the writ of execution for implementation on September 20, 2004.
But it took Dizon more than four months to partially implement the said writ on January 21,
2005.

Dizon reasoned out that it took him awhile to implement the writ due to Tamayo’s failure to
provide him with police assistance.

However, the Office of the Court Administrator said Dizon failed to comply with his ministerial
duty to state in the sheriff’s return, as well as in his periodic reports, the alleged impediment in
the implementation of the writ and the reason why the monetary judgment remained unsatisfied.

In 2004 Alberta Zaragoza, Sheriff 3 of MeTC Pasay City Branch 45, was found guilty of grave
misconduct and simple neglect of duty and ordered his dismissal from the service with forfeiture
of all his retirement benefits and barred from re-employment in the government, including
government-owned and -controlled corporations.

Zaragoza was also ordered to return the amount of P30,000 to complainant Meneses.
“In the case, respondent failed to make the required periodic reports. Although the alias in the
writ of execution was issued on July 2, 2001, respondent belatedly submitted his ‘partial report’
only on September 27, 2001, more than 80 days after the issuance thereof,” the resolution read.

Bundy cards

IN 2009 Sheriff IV Dominador C. Masangkay and five other court staff were found guilty of
dishonesty and ordered to pay a fine of P5,000 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severity.

The case stemmed from the complaint filed by the Leave Division of the OCA-Office of
Administrative Services, which found irregularities in the bundy card entries for the month of
November 2009 of Masangkay and the other respondents.

The complainant discovered that Masangkay and his co-respondents made it appear that they
arrive on time in the morning when the entries were actually made in the evening of the same
dates.

The respondents, based on record, admitted allowing one of the staff from the Office of the Clerk
of Court, Balanga City, Bataan, to punch in all their bundy cards, indicating the almost identical
time-in and time-out on their daily time record at the questioned dates. Such act constituted
falsification.

“They made it appear that their log-in time was made in the morning instead of the actual time-in
made in the evening of the 6th, 12th, 17th and 26th of November 2009,” the resolution read.

Calo’s case

IN 2012 Sheriff IV Arthur Calo of Branch 5 of the Butuan City RTC was found guilty of neglect
of duty and conduct unbecoming a court employee and was fined in the amount of P20,000 to be
deducted from the benefits due him.

The case stemmed from the complaint filed by lawyers Ricardo Gonzales and Ernesto Rosales.

In the said case, Calo was found to have been clearly remiss in the performance of his mandated
duties by unilaterally giving occupants three months, instead of three days provided by the Rules,
to vacate the property. When Calo did not evict occupants from the premises, a room containing
their personal effects was padlocked, therefore delaying the demolition of the improvements
introduced on the property.

Likewise, the resolution said Calo failed to make a return on the writ of possession immediately
after he implemented the same, thus, resulting in the filing of a complaint of neglect of duty and
conduct unbecoming a court employee.

The Court has held that “sheriffs must not exhibit conduct that may discredit the public’s faith in
the judiciary.”
It added that “sheriffs must perform their duties with utmost honesty and diligence considering
that even the slightest deviation in the prescribed procedure may affect the rights and interests of
the litigants.”