Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD
DIVISION
|
DOLORES C.
SELIGER, Complainant, - versus - ALMA P. LICAY,
Clerk of Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Respondent. |
|
A.M. No.
P-11-2970 (Formerly OCA
I.P.I. No. 10-3568-P) Present: VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson, PERALTA, ABAD, SERENO,* JJ. Promulgated: September 14, 2011 |
x -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This
administrative case stemmed from an affidavit-complaint filed by Dolores C.
Seliger (complainant) on December 13, 2010 with the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) charging Alma P. Licay (respondent), Clerk of
Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, San Juan, La Union (MCTC), with misconduct,
irregularity in the performance of duty, violation of Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 3019 otherwise known as The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, fraud,
and illegal exaction.
In her affidavit-complaint,[1]
complainant alleged that respondent was the wife of Venecio A. Licay (Venecio),
the defendant in Civil Case No. 510 for collection of sum of money with
damages, which she had filed in court where respondent worked as Clerk of Court;
that respondent collected and received from her the amount of One Thousand (P1,000.00)
Pesos purportedly as process server fee; and that instead of issuing an
official receipt, respondent issued an acknowledgment receipt.
She further averred that respondent slept on her job
and deliberately delayed the service of summons to Venecio.
In its 1st Indorsement[2] dated
In her Comment,[3] respondent
admitted collecting the said amount and reasoned out that Section 10 of
Administrative Circular No. 35-2004, as amended, provides for the payment of ₱1,000.00
to defray the actual travel expenses of the sheriff, process server or other
court-authorized persons in the service of summons, subpoenas and other court
processes that would be issued relative to the trial of the case. She further explained
that since the process server fee did not fall under the Judiciary Development
Fund (JDF) or the Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) or
subject to any fund allocation, the issuance of an acknowledgment receipt was
sufficient.
Respondent claimed that she had no corrupt motive in
issuing the acknowledgment receipt and insisted that she did not appropriate
the said amount for her personal benefit.
Furthermore, respondent asserted that she had no
wrongful intent to delay the proceedings relative to Civil Case No. 510. While
it was part of her duty to issue the service of summons, the actual service of
summons was the responsibility of the process server.
The OCA, in its Report dated
In the same report, the OCA stated that complainant
failed to substantiate her charges relating to corruption and to the alleged
deliberate delay in the service of summons to Venecio.
After careful consideration, the Court adopts the
findings and recommendations of the OCA.
The Court agrees with the
OCA that respondent violated the rule laid down in Section 10 (l) of Rule 141
which provides:
In addition to
the fees hereinabove fixed, the amount of One Thousand (₱1,000.00) 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 (₱1,000.00) 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.
While it is true that Section
10 (l) of Rule 141 allows the deposit of ₱1,000.00 pesos to defray the
actual travel expenses of the sheriff, process server or other court-authorized
persons in the service of summons, subpoenas and other court processes to be
issued relative to the trial of the case, the rule requires said court
personnel to first make an estimate of the travel expenses before they can
collect the said amount, and, thereafter, submit before the court, a statement
of liquidation.
As Clerk of Court of
MCTC, respondent performs a very delicate function.[4]
She acts as cashier and disbursement officer of the court,
and is entrusted to collect and receive all monies paid as legal fees,
deposits, fines and dues, and controls the disbursement of the same.[5]
Corollary, she is expected to possess a high degree of discipline and
efficiency in the performance of these functions.[6]
When respondent
decided to issue an acknowledgement receipt instead of an official receipt, she
violated
Supreme Court Circular No. 26-27 dated
Section 113. Issuance of official receipt 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.
Her explanation that
the acknowledgment receipt was sufficient since the process server fee she
collected was not part of the JDF, SAJ or subjected to any fund allocation was
not a valid justification for her non-compliance with the court circular. She
violated the trust and confidence reposed in her as cashier and disbursement
officer of the court. The Court will not tolerate any conduct, act or omission
by any court employee violating the norm of public accountability and
diminishing or tending to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[7]
A public office is a public trust and all public
officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, and this
Court cannot countenance any act or omission which diminishes or tends to
diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.[8]
Under Section 22, Rule XIV of the Rules
Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil
Service Laws, simple misconduct is classified as less grave offense with a
penalty ranging from suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6)
months, for the first offense, to dismissal, for the second offense.
Considering that this is the first infraction of respondent, the Court deems it
proper to reduce the penalty.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Alma P. Licay, Clerk of
Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, San Juan, La Union, GUILTY of simple
misconduct and imposes on her the penalty of FINE in the amount of One
Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos with a STERN WARNING that a repetition
of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
SO
ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA ROBERTO A.
ABAD
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MARIA
Associate Justice
* Designated
as additional member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 1028 dated
[1] Rollo,
pp. 2-3.
[2]
[3] Id. at 18-19.
[4] Collection
of fee for transportation allowance without proper receipt by Clerk of Court
Marciana Apas-Pilapil, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Liloan, Cebu, in Civil
Case No. 605-R, A.M. No. P-08-2434,
[5] Office of the Court
Administrator v. Pacheco, A.M. No.
P-02-1625, August 4, 2010, 626 SCRA 686, 697.
[6] Neri v. Hurtado, A.M. No.
RTJ-00-1584,
[7] Rebong v. Tengco, A.M.
No. P-07-2338,
[8] Lirios v.
Oliveros,
323 Phil. 318, 323 (1996).