959

Re: Letter Dated April 18, 2011 of Chief Public Atty. Acosta requesting exemption from
payment of sheriffs expenses
A.M. No. 11-10-03-O
April 18, 2011
Art. III, 11
FACTS:
Atty. Acosta, Chief Public Officer of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) sent a letter to
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) seeking to clarify as to the exemption of PAOs
clients from the payment of sheriffs expenses, alleging that the PAOs clients in its Regional
Office in Region VII are being charged with the payment of sheriffs expenses in the amount of
Php 1,000 upon the filing of a civil action in court. She claimed that sheriffs expenses should
not be exacted from PAOs clients since Sec. 6 of R.A. 9406 specifically exempts them from the
payment of docket and other fees incidental to instituting an action in court and other quasijudicial bodies.
In reply to Atty. Acosta, the OCA clarified that PAOs clients, notwithstanding their
exemption under Section 6 of R.A. No. 9406 from payment of docket and other fees incidental
to instituting an action in court, are not exempted from the payment of sheriffs expenses. The
OCA explained that sheriffs expenses, strictly speaking, are not considered as legal fees under
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court since they are not payable to the government; they are payable to
the sheriff/process server to defray his travel expenses in serving court processes in relation to
the litigants case.
Atty. Acosta replied, maintaining that while sheriffs expenses may not be strictly
considered as a legal fee, they are nevertheless considered as a fee which is incidental to the
filing of an action in court and, hence, should not be exacted from PAOs clients. She pointed out
that the imposition of sheriffs expenses on PAOs clients would render the latters exemption
from payment of docket and other fees under Section 6 of R.A. No. 9406 nugatory. Considering
that the matter involves an interpretation of R.A. No. 9406, Atty. Acosta requested that the same
be referred to the Court en banc for resolution.
The OCA maintained its position and stance in their previous letter, stressing that the Php
1,000 sheriffs expenses are not the same as the sheriffs fee fixed by Sec. 10, Rule 141 of the
Rules of Court, and recommended to the Court en banc to deny Atty. Acostas request for
exemption. Adopting the recommendation of the OCA, the Court en banc issued a resolution
which denied Atty. Acostas request.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the imposition of sheriffs expenses would hinder the access of PAOs clients to
the courts, contrary to Art. 3, Sec. 11.
RULING:
No.
The officials and employees of PAO are authorized to serve the summons, subpoenas and
other court processes in behalf of their clients would relieve the latter from the burden of paying
for the sheriff's expenses despite their non-exemption from the payment thereof under Section 6
of R.A. No. 9406. The amount to be defrayed in the service of summons, subpoena and other
Prepared by: Mary Louise M. Ramos

959

court processes in behalf of its clients would consequently have to be taken from the operating
expenses of PAO. In turn, the amount advanced by PAO as actual travel expenses may be taken
from the amount recovered from the adversaries of PAO's clients as costs of suit, attorney's fees
or contingent fees prior to the deposit thereof in the National Treasury.
The Court, however, is not unmindful of the predicament of PAOs clients. In exempting
PAOs clients from paying docket and other legal fees, R.A. No. 9406 intended to ensure that the
indigents and the less privileged, who do not have the means to pay the said fees, would not be
denied access to courts by reason of poverty. Indeed, requiring PAOs clients to pay sheriffs
expenses, despite their exemption from the payment of docket and other legal fees, would
effectly fetter their free access to the courts thereby negating the laudable intent of Congress in
enacting R.A. No. 9406.
Free access to the courts and adequate legal assistance are among the fundamental rights
which the Constitution extends to the less privileged. Thus, Section 11, Article III of the 1987
Constitution mandates that [f]ree access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate
legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. The Constitution affords
litigantsmoneyed or poorequal access to the courts; moreover, it specifically provides that
poverty shall not bar any person from having access to the courts. Accordingly, laws and rules
must be formulated, interpreted, and implemented pursuant to the intent and spirit of this
constitutional provision.
Access to justice by all, especially by the poor, is not simply an ideal in our society. Its
existence is essential in a democracy and in the rule of law. Without doubt, one of the most
precious rights which must be shielded and secured is the unhampered access to the justice
system by the poor, the underprivileged and the marginalized.

Prepared by: Mary Louise M. Ramos