Facts:

The case Ma. Corazon M. Andal vs. Nicolas A. Tonga arose from a verified complaint filed by Andal on January 11, 2000, against Nicolas A. Tonga, a Deputy Sheriff III assigned to the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Legaspi City. The complaint charged Tonga with overcharging and imposing unjustifiably high sheriff's fees that included padded expenses and fictitious charges while executing an alias writ of execution in Construction Industry Arbitration Commission (CIAC) Case No. 41-98. Ma. Corazon M. Andal, the complainant, served as the president of Andamar Incorporated, the corporation involved in the dispute. She articulated concerns regarding the legitimacy of certain expenses incurred by Tonga, particularly questioning a trip made to Muntinlupa City to retrieve a check necessary for execution. Andal criticized the travel expenses charged by Tonga, including exorbitant transportation costs and accommodations that seemed inappropriate given the distance of the dest

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Ma. Corazon M. Andal, President of Andamar, Incorporated, filed a verified complaint against Nicolas A. Tonga, Deputy Sheriff III of the MTCC, Legaspi City.
• The complaint alleged that Sheriff Tonga overcharged “unreasonably high sheriff’s fees” which included padded expenses and imaginary charges in connection with the execution of an alias writ in CIAC Case No. 41-98.

Alleged Overcharging and Expense Details

• The complainant contended that Sheriff Tonga incurred various expenses during a trip to Manila for obtaining a BPI check (which was missing from the records forwarded by Sheriff Bagubaldo of RTC, Muntinlupa City).
• Specific expenses charged included:

- Transportation expenses (tricycle, taxi, bus) - Airfare costs - Rent-a-Car fees - Accommodation expenses

Complainant’s Arguments and Submissions

• In her earlier letter to the Acting Clerk of Court, Mrs. Josefa Candia, the complainant raised several points:

- The check should have been included with the records by the RTC sheriff, hence the expenses should not be borne by Andamar, Incorporated. - The method of travel and corresponding charges (such as taking a plane versus bus or expensive car rentals) were excessively extravagant. - The complainant argued that if there was any benefit from Sheriff Tonga’s actions, the party that benefited should reimburse him.

Respondent’s Defense and CIAC Involvement

• Sheriff Tonga defended his claim by stating that:

- His claim for reimbursement was subject to the CIAC’s approval. - He had advised the complainant’s husband to issue a replacement check for the one held by the RTC sheriff, which was declined.

Investigation and Findings

• The case was referred to Executive Judge Raymund M. Jacob, MTCC Branch 2 for investigation.

- The investigating judge’s report (dated March 1, 2002) found that Sheriff Tonga acted irregularly by:

Prior Disciplinary History

• The Court took judicial notice that Sheriff Tonga had been previously found guilty of serious misconduct.

- He had been fined P5,000 for assisting another sheriff in an unauthorized execution of a writ. - He had also been sternly warned that similar future misconduct would be met with more severe penalties.

Issue:

Procedural Compliance

• Whether Sheriff Tonga followed the required procedural steps under Rule 141 before incurring or demanding reimbursement for his actual expenses.
• Whether the CIAC’s protocol for approving and disbursing sheriff’s expenses was observed by the respondent.

Appropriateness and Reasonableness of Claimed Expenses

• Whether the expenses claimed, particularly given their high figures (e.g., air fares, rent-a-car fees, and accommodation costs), were reasonable and necessary under the circumstances of executing the writ.
• Whether the complainant’s argument that the charges were extravagantly high held merit.

Accountability and Responsibility

• Whether the complainant, as a party adversely affected by the overcharging, should be held responsible for paying the disputed sheriff’s fees.
• Whether the responder’s actions constituted neglect of duty and if such actions warranted administrative sanctions, including suspension or dismissal.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)