Apuyan Jr. vs Sta.

Isabel
Facts: Before us is a complaint for Gross Misconduct, Conduct Unbecoming of a Public Official
and Graft and Corruption filed by Horacio B. Apuyan, Jr. and Alexander O. Eugenio against
Alfredo Sta. Isabel, Sheriff IV, Regional Trial Court, Branch 161, Pasig City (RTC for brevity).
The case resolves around the fact that the sheriff did not affect garnishment due to the fact that
he was not satisfied with the goodwill money given
Issue: WoN he can be held liable
Held: Respondent sheriff should have exerted every effort and indeed considered it his
bounden duty to see to it that the final stage in the litigation process, i.e., the execution
of the judgment is carried out in order to ensure a speedy and efficient administration
of justice. . .
Furthermore, respondents act of demanding money and receiving P1,500.00 from the
complainant for the lunch and merienda of the policemen who will accompany him in
executing the decision of the Court is a clear violation of section 9, Rule 141.
Bar Question: Is the sheriff liable for receiving money in excess of lawful fees?
Held: This Court has ruled that any amount received by the sheriff in excess of the
lawful fees allowed by the Rules of Court is an unlawful exaction and renders him
liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty.











FIL-ESTATE GOLF AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., vs Navarro

Facts Felicidad Navarro (respondent) filed a complaint for Cancellation of Title
and Recovery of Ownership and Possession with Damages against Carmona Realty
Development Corporation

Respondent alleged that she is the registered owner of two parcels of land
Instead of filing an answer, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, alleging that the action had prescribed and that the trial court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the case because respondent did not pay the correct
amount of docket fees.

The trial court issued an Order denying the motion to dismiss, stating that the
docket fees had been fully paid as certified by the clerk of court.

The Court of Appeals likewise denied petitioners motion for reconsideration.

Issue: WoN the payment of docket fees were sufficient

Held: we agree with petitioner that since the case is a real action involving
cancellation of titles and reconveyance of properties, then under Section 7(a),
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, the computation of the docket fees should be
based on the assessed or estimated value of the property.

Bar Question: How are docket fees computed when the case is a real action
involving cancellation of titles and reconveyance of properties

Answer: the computation of the docket fees should be based on the assessed or
estimated value of the property.










CEBU INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION vs Cabigon

Facts: Complainant alleges: a writ of possession was issued by
Atty. Jeoffrey S. Joaquino, Clerk of Court In September 2004,
Atty. Joaquino assigned respondent to implement the writ after the regular sheriff
of Branch 57 was disallowed to continue its implementation. He failed, however,
to fully implement the writ as he only managed to open the gates, but not the
doors, of the house in spite of the break-open order issued by the court on the
pretext that the owners of the house were not present. Atty. Joaquino advised
respondent that he may implement the writ even in the absence of the owners of
the house and there is no need for a break-open order as the writ carries with it
an authority to employ necessary means to implement the writ. When
respondent ignored the advise of Atty. Joaquino, complainant pleaded with him
and even wrote him a letter reminding him that his continued refusal to
implement the writ may open himself up to administrative liability.

Issue: WoN Respondent can be held liable

Held: Respondent must always bear in mind that public service requires utmost
integrity and strictest discipline. A public servant must exhibit at all times the
highest sense of honesty and integrity.
[13]
The administration of justice is a sacred
task.

Bar Question: What is the constitutional basis of the duties of Public Officers

Answer: ARTICLE XI
ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be
accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act
with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.








Sanga vs Alcantara

Facts: Complainant Sanga is one of the legal heirs of plaintiffs, Spouses Josefina
and Salvador Sanga Jr., in an ejectment case docketed as Civil Case No. 986 Later
on, Sanga substituted for his parents in view of their death. a Decision, in favor
of his parents, was rendered by then Presiding Judge Leili Suarez-Acebo of the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Tanay, Rizal, which ordered the defendants to
vacate the premises of the subject property and to deliver the possession thereof
to the plaintiffs.
[1]
Subsequently, a Writ of Demolition was issued, and the same
was directed to Alcantara.

Issue: WoN Sheriffs can be held liable

Held: Time and again, this Court has pointed out the heavy burden of
responsibility which court personnel are saddled with, in view of their exalted
positions as keepers of the public faith. They should, therefore, be constantly
reminded that any impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the
performance of official functions must be avoided.

Bar Question: Are sheriffs allowed to receive voluntary payments?

Answer: Sheriffs are not allowed to receive any voluntary payments from parties
in the course of the performance of their duties. To do so would be inimical to the
best interests of the service, because even assuming arguendo that the payments
were indeed given and received in good faith, this fact alone would not dispel the
suspicion that such payments were made for less than noble purposes.












Aranda vs Alvarez

Facts:
Judge Pio M. Pasia of the MTC issued an alias writ of demolition,
[3]
commanding
Sheriff Roderick O. Abaigar (Abaigar) of the MTC to demolish the improvements
erected on the Aranda property. In his sheriffs report
[4]
dated 5 July
1999, Abaigar stated that he implemented the alias writ of demolition by issuing a
notice to vacate on 3 June 1999 and ejecting the unlawful occupants from
the Aranda property.

Complainant filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) a letter-
complaint
[5]
dated 6 March 2000 charging Sheriff Teodoro S. Alvarez (Alvarez) of
the RTC and Abaigar with falsification of official document and grave
misconduct. According to complainant, Alvarez and Abaigar (1) stated in the
sheriffs report that they had implemented the alias writ of demolition when, in
truth, they had not; and (2) demanded and received P40,000 for the execution of
the writ.

Issue: WoN the sheriff is liable

Answer: Sheriffs are ranking officers of the court. They play an important part in
the administration of justice execution being the fruit and end of the suit, and
the life of the law. In view of their exalted position as keepers of the public faith,
their conduct should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of
the court.
[38]
Alvarez and Abaigar failed to live up to the high standards required
of sheriffs.

Bar Question: Can a sheriff use his own discretion to estimate the amount to be
paid for the execution of writs?

Answer: a sheriff cannot just unilaterally demand sums of money from a party-litigant without
observing the proper procedural steps, otherwise, it would amount to dishonesty or extortion.