THIRD DIVISION
|
COLLECTION OF FEE FOR
TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE WITHOUT PROPER RECEIPT BY CLERK OF COURT MARCIANA
APAS-PILAPIL, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC), LILOAN, CEBU, IN CIVIL
CASE NO. 605-R |
|
A.M.
No. P-08-2434
(Formerly A.M. No. 07-6-152-MCTC)
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: March 3,
2008 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
The Judiciary, being the institution charged
with the dispensation of justice – through the Supreme Court and the lower
courts, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk – must be circumscribed
with a heavy burden of responsibility. Any conduct which would violate the
norms of public accountability and diminish, or even tend to diminish, the
faith of the people in the justice system must be punished so as to deter a repetition
of the like.
In the case at bench, the Court reiterates
the standard of conduct that our court employees ought to observe in the
exercise of their functions as agents of justice.
The Facts
In
a letter[1]
dated December 28, 2006, Atty. Jose Wayne C. Lawas alleges that when he filed
on behalf of his client, a Complaint[2]
for unlawful detainer with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Liloan-Compostela, Liloan, Cebu, docketed as Civil Case No. 605-R entitled Gliceria C. Lawas v. Veneranda Longakit,
et al., the clerk of court, Ms.
Marciana Apas-Pilapil (Ms. Pilapil), collected and received from him the amount
of P4,427.00 representing payment of the Judiciary Development Fund
(JDF), Special Allowance for Justices and Judges (SAJ), Legal Research Fund
(LRF) and Transportation Allowance (TA).
A summary[3] of the
fees collected and received was personally handwritten by Ms. Pilapil, thus:
JDF - P1,006.00 SAJ - 2,064.00
LRF - 307.00
TA - 1,050.00
but while Ms. Pilapil issued official
receipts for the JDF,[4]
SAJ[5]
and LRF,[6]
she failed to issue an official receipt for the TA.
Atty.
Lawas was surprised with the collection of the TA because the two (2) official
receipts bearing O.R. No. 3868905 and O.R. No. 3868879 already reflected the
payment of fees for service of summons.
In
a letter[7]
dated P1,050.00 collected as transportation allowance, and why she
collected an amount more than what is required under Section 10, Rule 141 of
the Rules of Court.
In
her Comment[8] dated P1,000.00 upon filing of the complaint
“to defray the actual travel expenses of the Sheriff/Process Server.” As to why she collected the amount of P1,050.00
without issuing an official receipt therefor, she explained, thus:
1. She
has “no account” for the Sheriff’s Trust Fund;
2.
The Sheriff’s
Trust Fund is not among the fees she collects;
3.
It takes
her at least an hour to get to the depository bank (Land Bank) in
4.
She does
not collect transportation allowance for her travel to the depository bank;
5.
There
are seven (7) defendants in Civil Case No. 605-R, and the cost of the service
of summons upon each defendant was P150.00;
6.
She
collected the transportation allowance from Atty. Lawas on behalf of the process
server, Alfredo M. Noval, because the latter is a relative of the plaintiff and
one of the defendants, Lolita Cabahug, as well as of Atty. Lawas; and
7.
She
merely acceded to the request of Mr. Noval to collect said allowance.
Ms. Pilapil also took exception to
the action taken by Atty. Lawas in bringing the matter to the attention of the
Court Administrator, considering that Atty. Lawas paid an amount for the JDF
and SAJ less than what he ought to have paid.
In a Certification[9]
attached to the letter-comment of respondent, Process Server Alfredo M. Noval,
Jr. confirmed that he indeed requested respondent to collect the transportation
allowance to defray the expenses in serving the summons upon the defendants in
Civil Case No. 605-R.
The OCA Findings and Recommendation
For failure of Ms. Pilapil to abide
by the provision of Section 10 (l), Rule 141, Revised Rules of Court and
Supreme Court Circular No. 26-97, the OCA recommended that the complaint lodged
against Ms. Pilapil be docketed as a regular administrative matter, and that
she be fined in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for simple
misconduct, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense be
dealt with more severely.[10]
This Court’s Ruling
We adopt the findings and
recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator.
The procedural requirement for travel
allowance is provided in Section 10 (l) of Rule 141, thus:
In addition to the fees hereinabove fixed,
the amount of One Thousand (P1,000.00)
Pesos shall be deposited with the Clerk of Court upon filing of the complaint
to defray the actual travel expenses of the sheriff, process server or other
court-authorized persons in the service of summons, subpoena and other court
processes that would be issued relative to the trial of the case. In case the
initial deposit of One Thousand (P1,000.00)
Pesos is not sufficient, then the plaintiff or petitioner shall be required to
make an additional deposit. The sheriff, process server or other court-authorized
person shall submit to the court for its approval a statement of the estimated
travel expenses for service of summons and court processes. Once approved, the
clerk of court shall release the money to said sheriff or process server. After
service, a statement of liquidation shall be submitted to the court for
approval. After rendition of judgment by the court, any excess from the deposit
shall be returned to the party who made the deposit.
The required One Thousand Peso (P1,000.00)
deposit is primarily intended to defray the actual travel expenses of the
sheriff, process server or other court-authorized persons in the service of
summons, subpoena and other court processes to be issued relative to the trial
of the case. However, before the amount can be availed of, an estimate of the travel
expenses for service of summons and court processes should first be submitted
by the sheriff or process server. A statement of liquidation shall also be
submitted to the court for approval after the summons or court processes have
been served.
In this case, not only did Ms.
Pilapil grossly ignore the procedural requirement in the collection and
disbursement of travel allowance, she also failed to issue an official receipt
for the amount she collected. This
violated Supreme Court Circular No. 26-97 dated
For
proper accounting and control of revenues, no payment of any nature shall be
received by a collecting officer without immediately issuing an official
receipt in acknowledgment thereof. This receipt may be in the form of
stamps x
x x or officially numbered receipts, subject to
proper custody and accountability.
We agree with the findings of the OCA
that the explanation of Ms. Pilapil for her failure to issue an official
receipt for the transportation allowance she collected and received from Atty.
Lawas is inadequate and does not justify her disregard of the above
requirements.
Ms. Pilapil, as Clerk of Court and as
custodian of the court’s funds and revenues among others, performs a very
delicate function. She assumes a high
degree of responsibility relative to these funds, and is accountable not only
to the courts but to the litigants and their counsels as well. Her act of
collecting the amount of One Thousand and Fifty Pesos as transportation
allowance in violation of Section 10 (l), Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of
Court and her failure to issue an official receipt in violation of Supreme
Court Circular No. 26-97 are matters which this Court cannot tolerate.
When
Ms. Pilapil took exception to Atty. Lawas’ complaint and pointed out that counsel
paid an amount for the JDF and SAJ less than what he ought to have paid, she
merely underscored her neglect and failure to dutifully collect the exact fees
from the litigants. She herself admitted in her comment[11]
that she collected only Fifty-Six (P56.00) Pesos for the JDF and One
Hundred Forty-Four (P144.00) Pesos for the SAJ which left a balance of
Three Hundred Thirty-Six (P336.00) Pesos and Eight Hundred Sixty-Four (P864.00)
Pesos, respectively, or a total of One Thousand Two Hundred (P1,200.00)
Pesos.
It is worth noting that the Judiciary
Development Fund and the Fiduciary Fund partake of the nature of trust funds.[12] The JDF is being collected for the benefit of
the members and personnel of the Judiciary to help ensure and guarantee the
independence of the Judiciary in the administration of justice. It is also
intended to augment the allowances of the members and personnel of the Judiciary
and to finance the acquisition, maintenance and repair of office equipment and
facilities.[13] The fund answers for the continuing
development of our courts as channels of justice and as guardian of rights. In
ensuring the faithful collection of this fund, the Clerks of Court as
collecting officers exercise a very vital role.
Thus, Ms. Pilapil is entrusted with
the primary responsibility of correctly and effectively implementing
regulations regarding fiduciary funds. Her assertion of good faith cannot override
the mandatory nature of the above requirements essentially designed to promote
full accountability for government funds.[14]
Strict adherence to the Rules of
Procedure is a matter we expect from litigants and their counsels when they
seek redress and justice in courts. This
very same measure of faithfulness we demand from court officials and employees
in the performance of their duties for the effective and efficient
administration of justice.
The acts complained of against Ms.
Pilapil, having a direct relation to, and being connected with the performance
of, her official duties, constitute misconduct.[15] Misconduct
is defined as a transgression of some established and definite rule of action.[16]
For her failure to abide by the provision of Section 10(l), Rule 141, Revised Rules
of Court and Supreme Court Circular No. 26-97 dated
WHEREFORE, in
light of the foregoing, respondent Marciana Apas-Pilapil is found GUILTY of simple misconduct for which
she is FINED the sum of Five
Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and WARNED
that the commission of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 6.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Memorandum dated
[11] Comment of Ms. Marciana
Apas-Pilapil, dated
[12] Re: Report of Acting Presiding Judge Wilfredo F. Herico on Missing Cash Bonds in Criminal Case No. 750 and Criminal Case No. 812, A.M. No. 00-3-108-RTC, and Re: Financial Audit on the Cash Accounts of Messrs. Rolando B. Saa and Benjamin Sevilla of MCTC of Capalonga-Sta. Elena, Camarines Norte, A.M. No. 00-11-260-MCTC, January 28, 2005, 449 SCRA 407, 429.
[13] Section 1, P.D. 1949: The Judiciary Development Fund.
[14] Report
on the Financial Audit on the Books of Accounts of Mr. Delfin T. Polido, Former
Clerk of Court, MCTC, Victoria-La Paz, Tarlac, A.M. No. 05-11-320-MCTC,
[15] Teodulo V. Largo v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 177244, November 20, 2007.
[16] Vidallon-Magtolis
v. Salud, A.M. No. CA-05-20-P,