Pasok v. Diaz

A.M. No. P-07-2300 (November 29, 2011)

Atty. Pasok filed a complaint against Sheriff Diaz for extortion; he was dismissed for grave misconduct.

Facts:

The case involves an administrative complaint filed by Atty. Rutillo B. Pasok against Carlos P. Diaz, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacurong City, Branch 20. The complaint alleges multiple charges against Diaz, including dishonesty, gross inefficiency, abuse of authority, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019). The allegations stem from instances where Diaz allegedly extorted money from winning litigants under the pretext of covering costs associated with the implementation of court processes.

The complaint outlines several specific cases:

  1. Civil Case No. 761: Diaz allegedly demanded money from Pasok to cover expenses for implementing a writ of possession. Despite Pasok providing transportation for Diaz to the property, Diaz postponed the implementation after conferring with the defendants, who were revealed to be his relatives.

  2. Civil Case No. 02-104: Diaz sent a demand letter to Pasok, requesting P10,000 for expenses related to a writ of execution. When Pasok refused, no action was taken on the case.

  3. Sixteen Civil Cases involving Spouses Loyola: Diaz demanded between P500 to P1,000 per case for executing writs. After receiving P2,000, he failed to implement the writs and claimed he was too busy.

  4. Civil Case No. 02-076: Diaz requested P10,000 from the manager of Pasok's client for implementing a writ, but did not act when the amount was not deposited.

  5. Civil Case No. 671: After a judgment debtor paid P1,050,000, Diaz demanded P50,000 as legal fees, but only issued receipts totaling P37,600, keeping the balance of P12,400 for himself.

In all instances, Pasok contended that Diaz not only demanded and received money but also refused to perform his duties unless paid.

In response, Diaz admitted to some of the allegations but claimed that his actions were in line with standard practices and that he had not received any money from Pasok directly. He argued that the amounts requested were for legitimate expenses and that he had acted in accordance with court procedures.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed Diaz to comment on the allegations, leading to an investigation by Executive Judge Milanio M. Guerrero. After a lengthy process, the OCA recommended Diaz's dismissal for grave misconduct.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether Carlos P. Diaz committed acts of dishonesty and gross inefficiency in the performance of his duties as a sheriff.
  2. Whether Diaz's actions constituted a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
  3. The appropriate penalty for Diaz's misconduct, considering his previous infractions.

Arguments:

  • Complainant's Arguments: Atty. Pasok argued that Diaz's demands for money were extortionate and that his refusal to perform his duties without payment constituted gross misconduct. He emphasized that Diaz's actions undermined the integrity of the judiciary and violated established procedures for the collection of fees.

  • Respondent's Arguments: Diaz contended that his actions were standard practice and that he had not received any money improperly. He claimed that the amounts requested were necessary for the execution of his duties and that he had acted in good faith. He also argued that Pasok's failure to pay the required fees contributed to the delays in implementing the writs.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court found Carlos P. Diaz guilty of grave misconduct. It emphasized the heavy burden and responsibility of court personnel to maintain high ethical standards and public trust in the judiciary. The court noted that Diaz's own admissions confirmed his culpability, particularly regarding the collection of money without following proper procedures.

The court highlighted the following key points in its reasoning:

  1. Violation of Procedures: Diaz failed to adhere to the procedural requirements for collecting fees, which include obtaining court approval for estimated expenses and ensuring that payments were made through the Clerk of Court.

  2. Improper Collection of Fees: The court reiterated that sheriffs are not authorized to receive voluntary payments from parties and that Diaz's actions amounted to extortion.

  3. Ministerial Duty: The court stressed that sheriffs have a mandatory and ministerial duty to execute writs without delay, and Diaz's failure to do so constituted a serious breach of his responsibilities.

  4. Previous Infractions: The court considered Diaz's prior suspension for similar misconduct, which warranted a more severe penalty.

As a result, the court ordered Diaz's dismissal from service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits and privileges, and directed the initiation of criminal proceedings against him for violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. Strict Adherence to Procedures: Court personnel must strictly follow established procedures for the collection of fees and the execution of court orders to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.

  2. Prohibition Against Extortion: Any act of demanding or receiving money outside of the prescribed legal framework constitutes extortion and is subject to severe penalties.

  3. Ministerial Duties of Sheriffs: Sheriffs have a non-discretionary duty to execute writs promptly and cannot delay their actions based on personal judgments or demands for payment.