DE GUZMAN vs.

MENDOZA
A.M. No. P-03-1693
March 17, 2005
On 02 May 1988, Makati RTC rendered decision in favor of the defendant in a civil case, wherein complainant
Salvador De Guzman acted as counsel for the plaintiffs. On 13 October 2000, Judge Cruz issued a Writ of Execution
which ordered Respondent Sheriff Mendoza to cause the satisfaction of the said decision. Then, on 04 April 2001, an
Alias Writ of Execution/Possession/Ejectment/Demolition was issued, which, unlike the earlier writ of execution
which only ordered the cancellation of lis pendens and payment of attorneys fees, the latter writ of execution directed
the transfer of possession, ejectment, payment of monthly rentals, and demolition which were not covered by the
court decision.
In obedience to said writ, Respondent Sheriff Mendoza and Atty. Melotindos (counsel for the defendant) went to the
subject property to serve the Notice to Comply upon the five tenants. Respondent Sheriff allegedly intimidated the
tenants to vacate the premises, pay monthly rentals, and demolish the structures therein.
Complainant alleged that the Respondent Sheriff intentionally failed to attach Page 3 of the alias writ of execution to
the Notice to Comply, which he insisted was important because it contained the signatory of the writ, the date it was
signed and the dispositive portion of the court decision (which did not mention ejectment, monthly rentals, demolition
or possession). Moreover, complainant also alleged that from May 2001 to March 2002, Respondent Sheriff gathered
the plaintiffs tenants at Noytsis Panciteria in Makati City, where Atty. Melotindos would collect the rental and issue a
receipt. Thereafter, Atty. Melotindos would hand over to respondent sheriff his share in the collection.
In his Comment, Respondent Sheriff Mendoza characterized as preposterous, ridiculous and non-sensical, and should
not be attended to or entertained the charge that he connived in the issuance of the void writ of execution because as a
branch sheriff, he lacks the authority to issue writs or any court order. He also labeled as cheap, unkind and pure
harassment the allegation the he personally gathered the plaintiff-tenants to collect rentals from them.
Issue:
Whether or not Respondent Sheriff Mendoza is guilty of misconduct.
Held:
Yes.
There is no proof that respondent sheriff participated in the issuance of the void alias writ of execution nor did he
commit any infraction in the enforcement of the same.
The duty of a sheriff to execute a valid writ is ministerial and not discretionary. 1 A sheriff is the proper officer to
execute all writs returnable to the court, unless another is appointed by special order for the purpose. When a writ is
placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, to proceed with
reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate. He is supposed to execute the order of the
court strictly to the letter.
However, the court finds sufficient proof that Respondent Sheriff gathered the plaintiffs tenants at the Noytsis
Panciteria and received P500.00 from Atty. Melotindos.
Under Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, the procedure for the Execution of Writs and other processes are:

First, the sheriff must make an estimate of the expenses to be incurred by him;

1 A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in the context of a given set of facts, in a prescribed manner and
without regard to the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. A discretionary act, on the other hand, is a
faculty conferred upon a court or official by which he may decide the question either way and still be right.

Second, he must obtain court approval for such estimated expenses;

Third, the approved estimated expenses shall be deposited by the interested party with the Clerk of Court and
ex-oficio sheriff;
Fourth, the Clerk of Court shall disburse the amount to the executing sheriff; and
Fifth, the executing sheriff shall liquidate his expenses within the same period for rendering a return on the
writ.

* Any amount received by the sheriff in excess of the lawful fees allowed by the Rules of Court is an unlawful
exaction which renders him liable for grave misconduct and gross dishonesty.
In the instant case, there is no dispute that Atty. Melotindos acknowledged receipt of all the rentals collected by
Respondent Sheriff. Regarding the P500.00, such amount exceeded the lawful fees allowed by the Rules of Court, thus
it constitutes unauthorized fees and unlawful exaction which renders respondent sheriff guilty of dishonesty, grave
misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Thus, Respondent Sheriff Mendoza is found guilty of Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the
Best Interest of the Service, and is SUSPENDED for one year.