A.M. No. P-02-1631 - Balibag vs. Monica

A verified letter-complaint dated November 23, 2000, was filed by Banco Filipino Savings Mortgage Bank through its 2nd Assistant Vice President Renato C. Balibag.
The complaint charged Deputy Sheriff Hermito C. Monica with "serious negligence and refusal to perform official duties" in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019) and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713).
Banco Filipino was a defendant in an earlier ejectment case (Tala Realty Services, Inc. v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank) docketed as Civil Case No. 438-94 before Branch 26 of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Malabon, which led to a favorable Court of Appeals decision for the plaintiff in 1996.

After the finality of the appellate decision and a subsequent order of the MeTC, Banco Filipino was directed to have the rental deposits and supersedeas bond released, pursuant to an agreement reached between the plaintiff and the bank.
On November 10, 1998, the MeTC issued a supplemental order directing that the funds be released upon surrender of original receipts to satisfy the final judgment of the Court of Appeals.
On December 28, 1998, Deputy Sheriff Monica remitted to the plaintiff the unpaid rentals from the rental deposits, releasing P630,076.94 to Banco Filipino as excess.

On May 28, 1999, Banco Filipino, noticing a shortfall of P151,470.00 from the amount received, filed a motion with the MeTC requesting the withdrawal of the remaining balance of the rental deposits.
The motion was granted on July 16, 1999; however, Deputy Sheriff Monica refused to release the balance without being paid his sheriff’s fees.
On January 10, 2000, Banco Filipino filed another motion for the amount to be directly paid to it, but the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Malabon indicated that the money had already been withdrawn by the Deputy Sheriff.

On June 29, 2000, Banco Filipino communicated with Deputy Sheriff Monica, clarifying that the release of the balance was unnecessary as the bank had already satisfied the Court of Appeals’ decision from the earlier withdrawal.
Despite this, Deputy Sheriff Monica persisted in refusing to comply with the bank's demand.
In his Comment dated February 9, 2001, Deputy Sheriff Monica explained that on September 10, 1999, he had withdrawn the excess rental deposits (P151,470.00) from the drawee bank, deducting P15,000.00 for sheriff's fees and other expenses, thus retaining P136,470.00.
After a delay of four months and a failed attempt at personal delivery, on July 13, 2000, he finally turned over the amount to Banco Filipino.

On August 28, 2002, the Court resolved to docket the case as a regular administrative matter and requested both parties to manifest their willingness for resolution based on pleadings and records.
The Office of the Court Administrator, whose findings were adopted by the Court, stated that the respondent improperly withheld the P151,470.00 and deducted an additional 10% sheriff’s fee on this amount.

The case involves alleged violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019) and the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (RA 6713).
The controversy centers on the improper handling of funds held in trust and the questionable deduction of additional sheriff's fees from the rental deposits.

Whether Deputy Sheriff Monica violated the court’s clear order by withholding the remaining balance (P151,470.00) of the rental deposits.

Did his refusal to release the funds, pending the payment of additional sheriff’s fees, represent non-compliance with the MeTC’s order?
Was his act of withholding the funds an overstep of his official duties and authority?

Whether the deduction of a 10% surcharge (sheriff’s fees) on the unwithdrawn balance was legally permissible.

Is it proper to collect additional fees on funds that are not being collected by court process but rather constitute monies held in trust?

Whether the delay in releasing the funds and the manner of their eventual release constitute gross misconduct under the ethical and legal standards expected of public officials.