Abstract

This article examines whether a Contract of Service (COS) worker in a Philippine government agency or instrumentality—specifically a quasi-judicial body—may lawfully be “designated” or tasked to function as a sheriff. It analyzes the constitutional framework, civil service rules, joint CSC–COA–DBM issuances on COS and Job Order (JO) workers, the nature of sheriff functions in adjudicatory bodies, and the implications for accountability, security of tenure, and audit. The conclusion: as a rule, a COS worker should not be designated as a sheriff in a quasi-judicial body because sheriff work is a core, inherently governmental, and regularly necessary function that should be performed by a properly appointed civil service officer or employee occupying a plantilla position.

I. Background and Practical Scenario

Many Philippine quasi-judicial bodies—such as commissions, boards, and regulatory agencies—issue orders, decisions, and writs requiring enforcement. To carry these out, they often employ or need sheriffs or sheriff-like personnel to:

Serve summons and notices;
Implement writs of execution, levy, and garnishment;
Enforce cease-and-desist orders or demolition orders;
Coordinate with law enforcement and local government units.

Faced with staffing and budget constraints, some agencies consider hiring COS workers and then “designating” them to act as sheriffs, sometimes on the assumption that a designation is merely an internal assignment that bypasses the formal appointment process.

The question is whether this is legally defensible under Philippine civil service, administrative, and audit rules.

II. Legal Framework

A. Constitutional Setting: Civil Service and Merit System

Under the 1987 Constitution, the civil service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities, and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. Key principles:

Positions in the civil service must be filled on the basis of merit and fitness.
Security of tenure is guaranteed to civil service officers and employees; they may be removed only for cause, provided by law, and with due process.

Sheriff positions in government bodies, including quasi-judicial agencies, fall squarely within this civil service regime.

B. COS Workers and Their Legal Nature

Over the years, the Civil Service Commission (CSC), Commission on Audit (COA), and Department of Budget and Management (DBM) have jointly clarified the nature of:

Job Order (JO) workers; and
Contract of Service (COS) workers.

Common key points from these policies and circulars:

No employer–employee relationship with the government. COS workers are engaged through civil contracts (typically of a special, professional, or technical nature) and are not considered government employees in the strict civil service sense.
They are outside the regular plantilla. COS workers do not occupy items in the agency’s approved staffing pattern.
Intended only for short-term, non-regular, or support services. Guidelines consistently stress that COS and JO personnel:
- Must not be used to fill or perform the functions of vacant, regular plantilla positions; and
- Are mainly for support, ancillary, or non-core functions, or for specific time-bound projects.
No security of tenure, limited benefits. Because COS workers are not civil servants, they do not enjoy security of tenure under the Constitution and are generally hired for a fixed term, renewable at the agency’s discretion.

From this alone, tension is already evident: sheriff work in a quasi-judicial body is usually a regular, core, and continuing function, while a COS engagement is designed for temporary or non-core tasks.

III. The Sheriff’s Role in Quasi-Judicial Bodies

A. Typical Functions of a Sheriff

While there is no single unified “Sheriff Law” for all agencies, the role of a sheriff (or equivalent enforcement officer) in a quasi-judicial body typically includes:

Service of processes: Summons, subpoenas, notices, and orders issued by the body;
Implementation of writs: Writs of execution, demolition, garnishment, levy, and other enforcement orders;
Custody and accountability: Handling of garnished funds, seized properties, or proceeds of sale at public auction;
Coordination with law enforcement: Working with PNP, LGUs, and other authorities to ensure effective enforcement;
Preparation of returns: Submitting Sheriff’s Returns and reports on the implementation of writs and orders.

These duties are not merely mechanical. They often require:

Discretion and judgment in implementing writs;
Interaction with parties and local officials;
Handling of government and private properties and funds;
Adherence to procedural and ethical standards.

B. Nature of Sheriff Functions: Inherently Governmental and Core

Sheriff work in a quasi-judicial body is intimately tied to the exercise of adjudicatory and enforcement powers—that is, the coercive power of the State to:

Compel appearance;
Compel compliance with lawful orders; and
Seize or dispose of property to satisfy judgments.

Because of this:

It is inherently governmental, not merely auxiliary or support;
It is integral to the quasi-judicial function, not a peripheral task; and
It is regular and continuous, co-extensive with the agency’s adjudicatory mandate.

For these reasons, in practice, sheriffs are usually plantilla positions in courts and quasi-judicial bodies, and incumbents are civil servants subject to CSC rules.

IV. Designation vs. Appointment

A crucial distinction in Philippine administrative practice:

A. Appointment

An appointment is the act of placing a person in a position in the civil service:

It creates a legal tie between the appointee and the government;
It requires compliance with:
- Qualification standards;
- Civil service eligibility (where required);
- Approved staffing pattern and salary grade;
- CSC rules on publication and selection;
It is often subject to CSC attestation.

B. Designation

A designation is generally:

An assignment, usually to an existing government employee, of additional duties and responsibilities:
- Frequently in a concurrent capacity (e.g., Officer-in-Charge, or concurrent head of an office);
It does not create a new position or confer additional security of tenure;
It typically presupposes that the person being designated is already part of the agency’s plantilla.

Designation is an internal arrangement among employees. It is not a substitute for appointment for someone who is not an employee at all.

C. Why This Matters for COS Workers

Because a COS worker is not a civil service employee and does not hold a plantilla item:

There is no valid civil service “position” into which he or she can be appointed as sheriff, unless a proper appointment process is undertaken;
A “designation” of a COS worker as sheriff attempts to bypass:
- The constitutional merit and fitness requirement;
- CSC rules on appointment; and
- Budget and audit rules on filling plantilla positions.

In effect, designation is being used as a backdoor appointment without complying with civil service and budgetary controls.

V. Legal and Practical Issues with COS Sheriffs

1. Violation of CSC–COA–DBM Rules on COS

Policies on COS workers consistently emphasize:

COS and JO personnel must not be engaged for jobs that are part of the regular functions of the agency, especially if these functions are already embodied in existing plantilla positions.

A sheriff’s duties are:

Core, continuous, and necessary for the agency’s adjudicatory mandate; and
In many agencies, already represented by approved sheriff positions.

Designating a COS worker as sheriff:

Effectively uses COS to perform regular, core functions, contrary to the purpose of COS engagements;
Risks disallowance of payments by COA on the ground that COS funds were used to perform regular functions of a plantilla position.

2. Circumvention of Merit, Fitness, and Security of Tenure

Sheriff work involves:

Discretion and authority in implementing writs;
Handling of property and funds; and
Public trust.

The Constitution and civil service laws demand that such positions:

Be filled through a transparent merit-based process;
Be occupied by persons with security of tenure (assuming permanent or at least temporary appointment under civil service rules).

If a COS worker is designated as sheriff:

The agency effectively vests state coercive authority in a person without the appointment process required by the civil service law;
The COS worker does not acquire security of tenure, making them vulnerable to removal at will, which is inconsistent with the nature of a position exercising such authority;
It may be seen as bypassing competitive selection in favor of a purely contractual engagement.

3. Accountability and Bonding

Sheriffs are often accountable officers under audit and ethical standards:

They may receive garnished funds, proceeds of auction sales, or other monies connected with writ implementation;
They are expected to be bonded and subject to strict accounting and auditing requirements.

Issues that arise if the sheriff is a COS worker:

Can a COS worker legally be classified as an accountable officer in the same way as a regular employee?
Does the bonding and accountability framework assume a civil service appointment and a clear line of administrative responsibility?
COA and internal auditors may question the propriety of entrusting funds and properties to someone who is not a regular public officer or employee.

This can lead to disallowances, audit observations, and even personal liability on the part of agency heads who authorized the arrangement.

4. Administrative and Disciplinary Control

Regular sheriffs, as civil servants, are subject to:

The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees;
Civil service rules on administrative discipline;
Internal codes of conduct, if any.

A COS worker:

May be covered by some of these laws (especially broad anti-graft statutes), but:
- The internal disciplinary framework is less clear and may rely heavily on the civil contract rather than internal civil service remedies;
The agency’s ability to impose administrative sanctions in accordance with CSC rules may be questioned if the person is not actually within the civil service.

This ambiguity undermines predictable accountability for sheriff misconduct or negligence.

5. Legal Risk to Enforcement Actions

Parties might challenge writs or sheriff actions on grounds such as:

The person who implemented the writ was not a duly appointed, qualified officer of the quasi-judicial body;
The implementation therefore was irregular or void.

Even if courts ultimately uphold the enforcement (often applying substantial compliance), such challenges generate litigation risk and can delay execution, undermining the authority of the quasi-judicial body.

VI. Are There Any Situations Where a COS Worker Can Act as Sheriff?

Strictly speaking:

There is no express statute that says, in blanket terms, “A COS worker can never perform sheriff work.”
However, the combined effect of:
- Constitutional provisions on civil service;
- CSC–COA–DBM rules on COS;
- Audit principles on accountable officers; and
- The nature of sheriff functions

strongly discourages, and practically prohibits as a matter of good practice, the use of COS workers as sheriffs.

Possible—but still risky—scenarios sometimes raised in practice:

Minor, auxiliary tasks only. A COS worker might assist in logistical or clerical aspects (e.g., preparing documents, encoding returns) without being the official sheriff who implements writs or handles funds. Even here, caution is advised to ensure:
- They are not effectively performing the substance of sheriff functions; and
- Their role is clearly defined as support, not enforcement.
Interim assistance in emergencies. In rare cases, an agency with no available sheriff might ask a COS worker to temporarily assist in certain enforcement activities. This should be:
- Truly exceptional;
- Limited in duration; and
- Promptly followed by proper appointment of a qualified civil servant to a sheriff position.

Even in these scenarios, the legal and audit risks remain significant, and agencies often find that the small convenience gained is not worth the potential consequences.

VII. Policy and Jurisprudential Tendencies

Jurisprudence and administrative policy over the last decades have consistently moved in the direction of:

Discouraging the use of JO and COS arrangements to perform regular and core functions of government;
Requiring regularization of workers who perform continual, necessary tasks indistinguishable from plantilla positions;
Treating the improper use of JO/COS arrangements as a form of circumvention of civil service and labor protections.

While specific Supreme Court cases may involve particular agencies or fact patterns, the general trend is that:

Courts, CSC, and COA look dimly on arrangements where:
- Workers do the job of regular employees for extended periods; but
- The government avoids giving them civil service status and tenure by keeping them as COS or JO.

Applied to sheriffs, this trend strengthens the argument that sheriff work must be done by duly appointed civil servants, not by COS workers.

VIII. Rights and Remedies of COS Workers Acting as Sheriffs

If a COS worker has been informally acting as a sheriff, the following issues arise:

Entitlement to Regularization?
- They may argue that they have been performing duties of a regular civil service position (sheriff), thus deserving appointment/regularization.
- However, Philippine law does not automatically grant permanent civil service status simply by length of service or by performance of duties; an actual appointment is still needed.
Claims for Proper Compensation and Benefits.
- If they have been performing higher-level functions (e.g., sheriff work) while being paid at a lower rate, they may raise concerns of inequity.
- But any claim for backwages or benefits must navigate civil service and budgeting rules, as well as COA regulations on disbursements.
Administrative or Legal Complaints.
- In extreme cases, where the arrangement results in clear circumvention of rules or in prejudice to the COS worker or the public, complaints may be filed with:
  - CSC (for violations of civil service laws);
  - COA (for audit and disallowance issues);
  - Ombudsman (in cases involving possible graft or abuse).

IX. Practical Guidance for Quasi-Judicial Bodies

For Agency Management

Avoid designating COS workers as sheriffs. Treat sheriff work as a regular, core enforcement function that must be carried out by a duly appointed civil servant occupying a plantilla item.
Create or fill plantilla sheriff positions.
- Coordinate with DBM for the creation, reclassification, or funding of sheriff items;
- Conduct proper recruitment and selection following CSC rules;
- Ensure qualification standards and eligibility requirements are clear.
Use COS only for legitimate support roles.
- Limit COS engagements to clearly non-core, non-regular tasks;
- Avoid job descriptions that mirror those of sheriff or other core positions.
Clarify accountability chains.
- Ensure that only appointed sheriffs or duly authorized employees sign Sheriff’s Returns, receive garnished funds, or handle properties;
- Properly document delegation and authority.
Audit-proof the arrangement.
- Regularly consult auditors and legal offices to ensure that staffing patterns and actual work assignments conform with CSC and COA rules;
- Be prepared to defend staffing choices in case of audit observation or disallowance.

For COS Workers Currently Acting as Sheriffs

Clarify your official status in writing.
- Ask HR or the legal office for a clear written description of your duties under your COS contract;
- Ensure that your role does not exceed what is legally and contractually provided.
Seek regular appointment where possible.
- If you wish to continue as a sheriff, explore opportunities to apply for a regular, plantilla sheriff position when it is opened and published.
Protect yourself from undue risk.
- Be cautious in handling funds or properties if your legal authority as sheriff is unclear;
- Document instructions and approvals from superiors.

X. Conclusion

In the Philippine legal and administrative framework, a Contract of Service (COS) employee should not be designated as a sheriff in a quasi-judicial body in the ordinary and continuing sense.

The sheriff’s role is:

Inherently governmental;
Core to the enforcement of quasi-judicial decisions;
Connected with accountability for property and funds; and
Traditionally and functionally a civil service position that should be filled through proper appointment, with all its attendant safeguards of merit, fitness, and security of tenure.

Using a COS worker as a de facto sheriff:

Conflicts with CSC–COA–DBM policies on COS engagements;
Risks audit disallowances and legal challenges;
Weakens accountability and the integrity of enforcement actions; and
May be seen as circumventing the constitutional requirement that public offices be filled on the basis of merit and fitness.

The sound and defensible approach is for quasi-judicial bodies to ensure that sheriff functions are performed by duly appointed civil service employees occupying appropriate plantilla positions, and to reserve COS engagements for genuinely ancillary and non-core support services.

Note: This article is for general information and academic discussion. For specific cases, parties should consult their agency legal office or seek professional legal advice tailored to the concrete facts involved.