Short answer. Yes. Rule 71, Section 3(a) of the Rules of Court treats “misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties” as indirect contempt. A sheriff or clerk of court who acts improperly while performing court functions can be charged, but only after a written charge and a chance to answer and be heard.
What the law says
Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official transactions
Rule 71, Section 3 — Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. Read the full provision →
What the law says
After a charge in writing has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel
Rule 71, Section 3 — Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. Read the full provision →
What counts as misbehavior in official duties
Rule 71, Section 3(a) singles out court officers by name: a sheriff serving a writ, a clerk of court issuing process, or anyone else performing an official function for the court can be cited for indirect contempt if they misbehave "in the performance of his official duties or in his official transactions." This is broader than ordinary rudeness — it reaches conduct that undermines the office itself, such as an officer using the authority of the court for a purpose the court never sanctioned, or handling official transactions carelessly or dishonestly. Because the officer is acting under the court's own name when the misconduct happens, the court treats the misbehavior as an affront to its own processes, not simply a workplace complaint to be handled elsewhere.
Due process before any penalty
Indirect contempt cannot be imposed on the spot. The rule requires that "a charge in writing has been filed," that the officer accused is given "an opportunity ... to comment thereon within such period as may be fixed by the court," and that they may be "heard by himself or counsel" before any punishment follows. This means the sheriff or clerk facing the accusation gets to see the specific allegation in writing, respond to it, and appear — personally or through a lawyer — before the court decides anything. Skipping any of these steps is itself a defect in the proceeding, because the whole point of classifying this as indirect rather than direct contempt is that it happens outside the judge's immediate presence and therefore needs a fuller hearing.
Other grounds that can also apply to a court officer
Section 3(a) is not the only basis available. The same rule also covers "any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court" and "any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade the administration of justice." A sheriff who misuses a writ of execution, or a clerk who tampers with court records or delays processes for improper reasons, could be charged under these broader grounds even where the misconduct is not framed purely as misbehavior in official duties. The categories often overlap, and a single set of facts can support more than one ground under the same section.
What the court can do while the case is pending
The rule also makes clear that filing an indirect contempt charge does not leave the court powerless in the meantime. It states that nothing in the section prevents the court "from issuing process to bring the respondent into court, or from holding him in custody pending such proceedings." This is a procedural safeguard to make sure the officer actually appears and answers the charge — it is not the punishment itself, which can only follow the written charge, the chance to comment, and the hearing described above. An officer summoned this way is still entitled to the full process before any contempt penalty is imposed.