FIRST DIVISION
CARLOMAGNO V.
TORIBIO,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-03-1714
February 13, 2004
-versus-
ATTY. FERMIN M.
OFILAS,CLERK OF COURT VI
AND EX-OFICIO SHERIFF,RTC-OCC, SAN MATEO,
RIZAL,
Respondent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
R E S O L U T I O
N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
As the custodians of
the Court’s funds, revenues, records, properties and premises, Clerks
of
Court perform very delicate functions and are liable for any loss,
shortage,
destruction or impairment thereof.[1]
It is presumed that they have familiarized themselves with the various
statutes and administrative circulars pertinent to their functions to
effectively
discharge their duties and responsibilities. Aside from being the
custodian
of the Court’s funds and property, a Clerk of Court is also entrusted
with
the responsibility of implementing regulations regarding fiduciary
funds.[2]
No protestations of good faith can justify non-compliance with the
circulars
designed to promote full accountability of government funds.[3]
On August 19, 2002,
Carlomagno Toribio, acting on behalf of the Spouses Iluminada A.
Zuasola
and Roger V. Zuasola, filed a letter-complaint against Atty. Fermin M.
Ofilas, Clerk of Court VI and Ex-Oficio Sheriff, RTC-OCC, San Mateo,
Rizal
with the Office of the Court Administrator.[4]
Together with the letter-complaint, Toribio filed the
Affidavit-Complaint[5]
of the Zuasola spouses, stating that on October 1, 1999, Iluminada
sought
to redeem a parcel of land from Ernesto E. Braña; that the land
had been mortgaged by her brother, Wilfredo Antonio, to Braña to
secure payment of a loan; that the mortgage was foreclosed and the
property
sold at public auction to Braña for P3,000,000.00; that Mrs.
Zuasola
deposited with respondent clerk of court the amount of P3,108,070.00,
consisting
of P108,070.00 in cash[6]
and P3,000,000.00 in Manager’s Check,[7]
issued by the RCBC Savings Bank, San Mateo, Rizal Branch; that
respondent
executed a Deed of Redemption[8]
dated October 1, 1999 in favor of Iluminada.chanrobles virtual law library
Thereafter, Iluminada
learned that on January 12, 2000, Braña executed an Affidavit of
Consolidation stating that there was no valid redemption of the
property.
It was discovered that the RCBC Manager’s Check entrusted to respondent
was deposited in his personal account in the Merchant Bank, San Mateo,
Rizal Branch under Savings Account No. 50000357 on October 5, 1999.cralaw:red
The money earned
interest in respondent’s personal account. On October 12, 2000,
respondent
transferred the amount of P3,640,278.00 in the Sheriff’s Trust Fund to
the Land Bank of the Philippines, but the redemption period had by then
expired.cralaw:red
Wilfredo Antonio, brother
of Iluminada A. Zuasola, likewise executed an affidavit stating that
his
sister withdrew her intent to redeem the property because Braña
had demanded the sum of P12,776,053.32. Iluminada thereafter tried to
recover
the entire deposit from respondent, who returned the amount, less the
charges
for the redemption.cralaw:red
In his Comment,[9]
respondent alleged that the objective of the complainants was to
recover
the interest earned by the redemption money. He stated that on October
1, 1999, before the expiry of the one-year redemption period, the
mortgagor,
Wilfredo Antonio, through his sister Iluminada, tendered the sum of
P3,000,000.00
in RCBC Manager’s Check No. 038375 and cash amounting to P108,070.00.[10]
That afternoon, Iluminada tendered another cash amount of P336,000.00
as
additional redemption money. On October 4, 1999, he notified[11]
Braña about Zuasola’s intention to redeem the property and
advised
him to claim the redemption money at his office and to surrender the
title
OCT No. P-935.chanrobles virtual law library
Since the Manager’s
Check was drawn in the name of respondent, he deposited the check in
his
personal account for purposes of expediency.cralaw:red
Braña did not
get in touch with respondent, instead he filed an Affidavit of Adverse
Claim on October 27, 1999 which was annotated by the Register of Deeds
on the title to the property.cralaw:red
Braña’s counsel
informed respondent that his client did not accept the redemption money
paid by Zuasola because the amount tendered was insufficient.cralaw:red
On October 4, 2000,
respondent received a demand letter from Wilfredo Antonio’s lawyer for
the release of the interest earned by the redemption money in the bank.cralaw:red
Respondent deposited
the money together with the interests in the Sheriff’s Trust Fund (STF)
Savings Account in Land Bank, Marikina City, amounting to P3,640,278.00.cralaw:red
Respondent sent a query
as to who was entitled to the accrued interest of the redemption money
withdrawn and whether or not a court order was necessary to withdraw it
inasmuch as, he was not familiar with the Sheriff’s Trust Fund.[12]
However, there was no answer by the OCA.cralaw:red
On September 10, 2001,
respondent withdrew from the STF the total accrued interest amounting
to
P239,065.00,[13]
and deposited it to the National Treasury, pursuant to Circular No.
50-95.[14]chanrobles virtual law library
On January 23, 2002,
the OCA wrote to respondent stating that since the redemptioner opted
not
to exercise his right of redemption, the money should accrue to him.
The
interest, on the other hand, earned on the deposit of redemptioner’s
money
accrued to the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF), pursuant to paragraph
e (2) of A.M. No. 99-8-01-SC.cralaw:red
On March 5, 2002, respondent
withdrew the money from the STF, deducting therefrom the sum of
P34,640.00,
which he deposited with the JDF.[15]
He released to Florencia Fernando, the representative of the Zuasolas,
the sum of P3,409,429.30.[16]
In compliance with the
Resolution of the Court dated July 14, 2003, respondent manifested his
willingness to have the case resolved on the basis of the pleadings and
records filed.cralaw:red
The sole issue in this
case is whether or not respondent is liable for depositing the funds
entrusted
to him to his personal savings account.cralaw:red
The OCA found that respondent
was not culpable but recommended censure for commingling the money of
the
Zuasolas with his personal funds.cralaw:red
We agree with the OCA’s
recommendation that respondent should be held liable; however, we hold
that a reprimand of respondent, rather than a mere censure, is
commensurate
to the degree of his misconduct.chanrobles virtual law library
It is clear from the
records that respondent deposited the money of the Zuasolas in his
personal
account, because the Manager’s check was in his name. Being the
custodian
of the court’s funds and revenues, respondent should have taken the
proper
steps to correct the error. He did not. While there is no sufficient
showing
that he had improper motives for depositing the said amount in his
personal
account, he must be held administratively liable for commingling these
funds with his own.cralaw:red
Clerks of Court are
officers of the law who perform vital functions in the prompt and sound
administration of justice.[17]
They perform a delicate function as designated custodians of the
court’s
funds, revenues, records, properties and premises.[18]
They generally are also the treasurer, accountant, guard and physical
plant
manager thereof.[19]
As such, they are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or
impairment
of such funds and property.[20]
Section B (4) of SC
Circular No. 50-95 on the collection and deposit of court fiduciary
funds
mandates that:
(4)
All collections from bail bonds, rental deposits, and other fiduciary
funds
shall be deposited within twenty-four (24) hours by the Clerk of Court
concerned upon receipt thereof with the Land Bank of the Philippines.chanrobles virtual law library
Along the same vein,
SC Circular Nos. 13-92 and 5-93 provide the guidelines for the proper
administration
of court funds. SC Circular No. 13-92 commands that all fiduciary
collections
“shall be deposited immediately by the Clerk of Court concerned, upon
receipt
thereof, with an authorized government depository bank.”
Clerks of Court are
reminded to deposit immediately with authorized government depositaries
the various funds they have collected because they are not authorized
to
keep those funds in their custody.[21]
The unwarranted failure to fulfill these responsibilities deserves
administrative
sanction and not even the full payment, as in this case, will exempt
the
accountable officer from liability.[22]
Respondent does not
deny having made late remittances and that he commingled the subject
funds
with his own. However, he claims that “his lack of knowledge about the
STF was the reason he deposited the check to his personal account.”[23]
According to him, the STF is not a very popular account among Clerks of
Court and Ex Oficio Sheriffs,[24]
and that upon inquiries made among his peers in Morong, Antipolo,
Marikina,
Pasig, Valenzuela and Quezon City, he found that none has opened or
maintained
the STF.chanrobles virtual law library
This notwithstanding,
we are not inclined to be sympathetic to respondent because he cannot
plead
his lack of knowledge or ignorance as an excuse. He is presumed to know
his functions and responsibilities which, among others, include a
working
knowledge of the STF. As a Clerk of Court, respondent is expected to
keep
abreast of all applicable laws, jurisprudence and administrative
circulars
pertinent to his office.cralaw:red
Respondent therefore
is guilty of violating the above SC Circulars. Under Rule XIV, Section
23 of the Civil Service Rules, the violation of reasonable office rules
and regulations is considered a light offense which is punishable, in
the
first instance, by reprimand.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, in view of
all the foregoing, respondent Clerk of Court FERMIN M. ORFILAS is
REPRIMANDED
for violation of Section B (4) of SC Circular No. 50-95 and SC Circular
No. 13-92. He is likewise STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same
or a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Panganiban, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
OCA v. Orbigo-Marcelo, 416 Phil. 356 (2001); citing Re: Financial Audit
in RTC, General Santos City, 338 Phil. 13 (1997); citing OCA v.
Bawalan,
A.M. No. P-93-945, 24 March 1994, 231 SCRA 408.
[2]
Pace v. Leonardo, A.M. No. P-03-1675, 6 August 2003.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Mallare v. Ferry, 414 Phil. 286 (2001); citing Report on the Financial
Audit in RTC, General Santos City and the RTC & MTC of Polomolok,
South
Cotabato, 384 Phil. 155 (2000).
[4]
Rollo, p. 1.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Id., pp. 8-10.
[6]
Id., p. 30.
[7]
Id., p. 32.
[8]
Id., p. 52.
[9]
Id., p. 36.
[10]
Id., p. 51.
[11]
Id., p. 54.
[12]
Id., p. 59.
[13]
Id., p. 69.
[14]
Id.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
Id., pp. 71-72.
[16]
Id., p. 73.chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
Reyes-Domingo v. Morales, A.M. No. P-99-1285, 4 October 2000, 342 SCRA
6; Escañan v. Monterola, A.M. No. P-99-1347, 6 February 2001,
351
SCRA 228.
[18]
§ B, Chapter I, 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, p. 4; OCA
v. Marcelo, A.M. No. P-00-1415-MeTC, 416 Phil. 356 (2001).
[19]
§ B, Chapter I, 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, p. 4.chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
Nones v. Ormita, A.M. No. P-01-1532, 9 October 2002, 390 SCRA 519;
citing
OCA v. Bawalan, supra.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
OCA v. Galo, 373 Phil. 483 (1999); Re: Report on the Judicial and
Financial
Audit of RTC-Branch 4, Panabo, Davao del Norte, 351 Phil. 1 (1998);
Ferriols
v. Hiam, A.M. No. P-90-414, 9 August 1993, 225 SCRA 206.chanrobles virtual law library
[22]
Re: Withholding of Other Emoluments of the following Clerks of Court:
Elsie
R. Remoroza of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Mauban, Quezon; Elena
P. Reformado of the MTC OF Guinayangan, Quezon; Eugenio Sto. Tomas of
the
MTC of Cabuyao, Laguna; Maura D. Campano of the MTC of San Jose,
Occidental
Mindoro; Eleanor D. Flores of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC)
of Taytay, Palawan; and Jesusa P. Benipayo of the MCTC of Ligao, Albay,
A.M. No. 01-4-133-MTC, 26 August 2003; citing Re: Report of Regional
Coordinator
Felipe B. Kalalo on Alleged Anomalies Involving JDF Collections in
MTCC,
Angeles City, and MCTC, Minalin, Pampanga, 326 Phil. 703 (1996); OCA v.
Galo, supra.
[23]
Comment, p. 13; Rollo, p. 48.
[24]
Id.
chan
robles virtual law library |