Case Summary (G.R. No. 197582)
Factual Background
Argoso wrote the Court Administrator on April 2, 2007 to request that Regalado be held administratively liable for acts unbecoming a sheriff. In the letter, Argoso recounted multiple instances when Regalado allegedly asked him for money in connection with the enforcement of the writ of execution in Civil Case No. RTC-91-2454. According to Argoso, Regalado sought money for travel to the Development Bank of the Philippines–Daet Branch (DBP-Daet) and also demanded amounts for drinks and “pulutan” for Regalado’s friends.
Argoso alleged the following payments: P1,000.00 on November 6, 2006 for travel allowance to DBP-Daet; P800.00 in December 2006 for travel to DBP-Daet; P740.00 on February 7, 2007 for drinks and “pulutan”; the giving of a Land Bank of the Philippines check numbered 179739; and P300.00 on March 9, 2007 for drinks and “pulutan**. Regalado denied Argoso’s accusations in his comment and claimed he never extorted money from Argoso.
Referral, Investigation, and OCA Findings
Upon the recommendation of the OCA, the Court referred the matter to the executive judge of the Naga City Regional Trial Court for investigation, report, and recommendation. The executive judge’s findings were later reported to the OCA.
Although Argoso died on January 12, 2008, the investigation continued to gather additional information. The executive judge’s report established that a writ of execution was issued in Civil Case No. 91-2454 and assigned to Sheriff Regalado for implementation. The investigating process likewise elicited Regalado’s admission that he received money from Argoso, which he used for his travel to DBP-Daet. Further, the DBP-Daet bank manager confirmed that Regalado went to the bank to secure a copy of the owner’s duplicate of OCT No. 6297, as directed in the writ of execution. The evidence presented by Regalado showed that he went to DBP-Daet three times.
The executive judge also found that Regalado did not prepare any estimated sheriff’s expenses duly approved by the judge, allegedly because compliance would have unduly delayed the withdrawal of funds from the Office of the Clerk of Court. The executive judge concluded that this failure violated Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 35-04, dated August 12, 2004, which prescribed the procedure for the payment of expenses incurred in implementing a writ. The executive judge recommended that Regalado be strongly admonished and warned that repetition of similar conduct would be dealt with more severely.
The OCA disagreed with the recommended penalty as too light. It relied on Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, which required the sheriff, in executing writs issued pursuant to court orders or decisions, to provide an estimate of expenses subject to court approval, to ensure that the interested party deposits the approved amount with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff, and to require liquidation upon return of the process, with unspent amounts refunded to the party making the deposit.
The Parties’ Positions on Administrative Liability
The OCA assessed Regalado’s conduct based on his own admission that he received money from Argoso for travel and his noncompliance with the formal requirements of Rule 141, Section 10. It thus found Regalado guilty of a serious violation of existing rules. The OCA classified the offense as a less grave offense under Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, and because it was Regalado’s first offense in the OCA’s treatment, it recommended a penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay, coupled with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.
Argoso’s complaint, although framed as a charge of acts unbecoming a sheriff and supported by allegations of money demands for travel and “pulutan,” was contested by Regalado in his comment. However, the administrative outcome turned primarily on Regalado’s admission of receiving money for travel and his failure to observe the procedural safeguards mandated for sheriff’s expenses in enforcing writs.
Prior Administrative Case Against Regalado
The Court emphasized that this complaint did not arise in a vacuum. In A.M. No. P-10-2772, titled Domingo Pena, Jr. v. Achilles Andrew V. Regalado II, decided on February 16, 2010, the Court had found Regalado guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for not following the proper procedure in enforcing writs of execution.
In that prior case, the judgment on execution required complainant Pena to pay a fine and damages to Flora Francisco. Pena alleged that Regalado collected P13,000.00 but issued only a handwritten acknowledgment receipt, not an official receipt. During the investigation, Regalado confessed that he did not remit the money to the Office of the Clerk of Court to spare Francisco the inconvenience of filing a motion to release the money. He also explained that Francisco was not present that day and that he gave the money to her the next day. The Court also noted that Regalado collected additional amounts and remitted them only after significant delay and the intervention of the judge.
For these wrongful actions, the Court in Domingo Pena, Jr. v. Achilles Andrew V. Regalado II suspended Regalado for one (1) year without pay, with a stern warning that repetition of the same offense would be dealt with more severely.
The Court’s Assessment of This Complaint
In the present case, the Court treated Argoso’s complaint as similarly involving money received by Regalado from an interested party in implementing a writ of execution. The Court held that Regalado should not have received money from Argoso for transportation to Daet without first submitting his expenses for court approval, consistent with Rule 141, Section 10.
The Court viewed Regalado’s admission that he received money without complying with the proper procedure in enforcing writs of execution as establishing conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. It also treated the matter as a second administrative case for Regalado arising from similar procedural violations in the enforcement of writs of execution.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court anchored its classification of the offense on Section 52(A)(20) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, whi
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 197582)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Levi M. Argoso filed a letter-complaint with the Court Administrator seeking administrative accountability against Sheriff IV Achilles Andrew Regalado II for alleged acts unbecoming a sheriff.
- The Court referred the matter to the Naga City Regional Trial Court (RTC) executive judge for investigation, report, and recommendation.
- The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reported the executive judge’s findings and submitted its own assessment of the proper penalty.
- The Court treated the case as a second administrative matter against Regalado arising from the enforcement of writs of execution.
- The Court ultimately dismissed Regalado from the service with prejudice after finding him guilty for the second time.
Key Factual Allegations
- Argoso alleged that during the implementation of a writ of execution in Civil Case No. RTC-91-2454 involving Heirs of Adelaida Vicente-Argoso v. Development Bank of the Philippines, et al., Regalado repeatedly asked him for money.
- Argoso alleged that Regalado demanded amounts for travel related to the case, as well as for drinks and “pulutan” for Regalado’s friends.
- Argoso identified alleged payments as follows: P1,000.00 on November 6, 2006; P800.00 in December 2006; P740.00 on February 7, 2007; P300.00 on March 9, 2007.
- Argoso alleged that he gave Regalado a Land Bank of the Philippines check no. 179739.
- Regalado denied extorting money and asserted he never collected money from Argoso.
- After Argoso’s death on January 12, 2008, the investigating judge continued the investigation to gather further information.
- The investigation established that Regalado admitted receiving money from Argoso which he used for travel to DBP-Daet, contrary to the claim of non-collection.
Court’s Findings on the Writ Enforcement
- A writ of execution was issued in Civil Case No. 91-2454 and assigned to Sheriff Regalado for implementation.
- The DBP-Daet bank manager confirmed that Regalado went to the bank to secure a copy of the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. 6297, as directed in the writ of execution.
- The investigating judge’s report found that Regalado went to DBP-Daet thrice, and his evidence supported that fact.
- The findings established that Regalado did not prepare any estimated sheriff’s expense that received the judge’s approval.
- The findings further established that Regalado violated Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 35-04 dated August 12, 2004, which prescribed the procedure for the payment of expenses incurred in implementing writs.
Governing Procedural Requirements
- The Court relied on Rule 141, Section 10 of the Rules of Court requiring sheriffs, for sheriff’s expenses in executing writs, to estimate expenses subject to court approval.
- Under Rule 141, Section 10, once the estimated expenses received court approval, the interested party had to deposit the amount with the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff.
- Under Rule 141, Section 10, the clerk of court and ex-officio sheriff had to disburse the deposited funds to the deputy sheriff assigned, subject to liquidation within the period for the sheriff’s return.
- Under Rule 141, Section 10, liquidation had to be approved by the court, and any unspent amount had to be refunded to the party who deposited it.
- Under Rule 141, Section 10, a full report had to be submitted by the deputy sheriff with his return, and the sheriff’s expenses had to be taxed as costs against the judgment debtor.
Administrative Case Classification
- The OCA treated Regalado’s non-compliance with Rule 141, Section 10 as a serious violation of existing rules.
- The OCA characterized the violation as a less grave offense under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service for the purpose of the recommended penalty.
- The OCA’s recommended penalty reflected that it considered this as Regalado’s first offense under that specific treatment.
- The Court, however, classified Regalado’s conduct as co