A.M. No. 11-10-03-O - Re: Rueda-Acosta

On February 7, 2011, Atty. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta, Chief Public Attorney of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO), sent a letter to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
In the letter, she sought clarification on whether PAO clients were exempt from paying sheriff’s expenses, similar to their exemption from docket and other legal fees under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9406.
Atty. Acosta alleged that PAO clients in the Regional Office in Region VII were being charged P1,000.00 as sheriff’s expenses upon filing of civil actions, a charge she considered inconsistent with RA No. 9406.

Response of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and Initial Resolution

On March 23, 2011, the OCA replied to Atty. Acosta, clarifying that despite the exemption from filing fees provided by RA No. 9406, PAO clients were not exempt from paying sheriff’s expenses.
The OCA explained that sheriff’s expenses are not classified as legal fees under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court because they are paid directly to the sheriff or process server for travel expenses, rather than being fees payable to the government.
On April 18, 2011, Atty. Acosta maintained her position in another letter, contending that sheriff’s expenses should be considered fees incidental to the filing of an action and that imposing them would negate the intent of RA No. 9406.

On September 14, 2011, the OCA reaffirmed its previous position in its report and recommendation, asserting that the P1,000.00 charge for sheriff’s expenses was not analogous to the legal fees covered under the exemption.
Following the OCA’s recommendation, the Court en banc issued a Resolution on November 22, 2011, denying the request for exemption from sheriff’s expenses.
Atty. Acosta sought reconsideration on January 2, 2012, which was again referred to the OCA. The OCA, in its report dated March 22, 2012, noted that exemption from legal fees is not absolute and reaffirmed its position to deny the motion.
Subsequently, the Court en banc, on April 24, 2012, denied Atty. Acosta’s motion for reconsideration.
Undeterred, Atty. Acosta filed a second motion for reconsideration (with leave to file), arguing that the imposition of sheriff's expenses was contrary to both the language and the underlying intent of RA No. 9406, as well as to Section 11 of Article III of the Constitution guaranteeing free access to the courts.

The case involved an interpretation of Section 6 of RA No. 9406, which explicitly exempted PAO clients from payment of docket and other fees incidental to instituting an action, but did not cover sheriff’s expenses.
The Court recognized this instance as the third attempt by Atty. Acosta to obtain a declaration exempting PAO clients from such expenses.
The Court emphasized that its administrative power over court procedures should not be undermined by procedural technicalities such as the filing of a second motion for reconsideration.
Moreover, the Court acknowledged the concern in relation to access to justice for indigent litigants, but held that the exemption provided by RA No. 9406 specifically pertained to legal fees and not to the separate charge for sheriff’s expenses.
To alleviate the burden on PAO clients, the Court ultimately authorized PAO officials to serve summons, subpoenas, and other court processes on behalf of their clients, with the corresponding expenses to be drawn from PAO’s operating funds.

Does Section 6 of RA No. 9406, which exempts PAO clients from payment of docket and other associated fees, extend to include the payment of sheriff’s expenses?

Should sheriff’s expenses be classified as legal fees within the meaning of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court?
How does the distinction between "fees" and "expenses" affect the applicability of the statutory exemption for PAO clients?

Would imposing sheriff’s expenses on PAO clients hinder their constitutional right to free access to the courts, as guaranteed by Section 11 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution?

Is a second motion for reconsideration, as filed by Atty. Acosta, procedurally acceptable, and under what circumstances might it be considered?