SECOND DIVISION
A.M. No. P-04-1794 April 14, 2004
(formerly OCA IPI NO. 03-1626-P)
EUGENIO C. GONZALES, ET AL., petitioner,
vs.
MARIANO S. FAMILARA III, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court of Roxas (Branch 43), Oriental Mindoro, respondent.
RESOLUTION
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
In a letter dated April 23, 2003, Atty. Benjamin Relova, in behalf of Eugenio C. Gonzales, et al., charges Atty. Mariano S. Familara III, Clerk of Court of Branch 43, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Roxas, Oriental Mindoro of gross negligence, grave misconduct and gross dereliction of duty in the performance of his duty as clerk of court.
Atty. Relova alleges: In Civil Case No. C-351, entitled, "Diana Gonzales and Eugenio Gonzales vs. Mrs. Vera P. Quiazon, et al.," his client, Eugenio C. Gonzales, deposited for consignation before the said RTC, a manager’s check dated 24 May 1999 in the amount of ₱300,000.00. Respondent did not deposit the check with a depository bank in violation of the Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 dated 1 March 1992 which expressly directs that "all collections from bailbonds, rental deposits and other fiduciary collections, shall be deposited immediately by the Clerk of Court concerned upon receipt thereof, with an authorized government depository bank." Such inaction on the part of the respondent has not only deprived the National Treasury of interest which the check should have earned had it been deposited, but may have also caused prejudice to their client in terms of interest had the consignation been disapproved.
In his Comment, respondent explains, as follows: After some brainstorming with Presiding Judge Antonio M. Rosales, he was prevailed upon by the judge not to deposit the check for the time being for the reason that it would come in handy whenever the need arises for the check’s presentation, identification, comparison and marking in the course of the proceedings. The check was ultimately marked by the plaintiff’s counsel as their Exhibit "N" during the pre-trial conference, thus showing conformity with the suggestion of the Judge. As said check was marked in evidence, it already formed part of the record of the case and should stay therein until the propriety or impropriety of the consignation has been acted upon by the court. Such petition was bolstered by the ruling of the Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. S.P. No. 57597, entitled, "Eugenio C. Gonzales, et al. vs. The Hon. Antonio M. Rosales, et al.," to wit:
As to petitioners’ claim for interest which the check they had consigned may have earned if deposited with an authorized government depository bank in accordance with Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 which took effect March 1, 1992 (p. 9, Motion for Reconsideration, p. 202, Rollo), it is premature in the present petition for certiorari to claim any contingent interest which may accrue by reason of the consignment of the check in court for the reason that petitioners’ main case below is for consignment, the propriety of which is yet to be determined on the merits by the court a quo.
Consequently, petitioners’ prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order to restrain the lower court from proceeding with the hearing until after we shall have resolved the latter issue is without any valid basis.
WHEREFORE, petitioners’ motions are denied for lack of merit.
He acceded to what his judge would like to do with the check tentatively because that is consistent with the latter’s prerogative on the manner by which the hearing of a case should be conducted in conjunction with his power of control and supervision over his subordinates. The check became stale because the time to rule on it was wasted away, hampered by the many pleadings filed by plaintiff’s counsel, such as several motions for postponement, reconsideration, inhibition, certiorari, etc., as can be borne out by the records itself which presently has become voluminous, comprising now of two volumes, each volume measuring eight inches in thickness. The case is yet in its initial stage.
Respondent prays for understanding and consideration in view of the absence of gain and ill motive on his part in not doing what complainant said he should have been done.
In his Reply, complainant contends: Circular Nos. 13-92 and 32-93 mandate that clerks of court should deposit fiduciary funds immediately with authorized government depository banks. There are no "ifs" or "buts" in the aforesaid issuances. There are no brainstorming necessary on the part of the Judge and the Clerk of Court because the matter simply involved the immediate deposit of all collections and deposits received. Respondent should have immediately deposited the check so that it could earn interest for the benefit of the employees of the judiciary. It would have been sufficient that the receipt for the deposit be marked in evidence and the check photocopied in order not to delay its deposit but respondent allowed years to pass without depositing the check until it became stale.
In his Answer to the Reply, respondent quoted the ruling of the Supreme Court in Re: Deposit on the Financial Audit in RTC, General Santos City, to wit:
Indeed, clerks of court are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts; with regard to COLLECTION OF LEGAL FEES, they perform a delicate function as judicial officers . . .1
He maintains that the cited ruling speaks of collection of legal fees which is distinct and totally different from consignment of checks; that when a petitioner files a petition for consignation of a check, he is required to pay a correspondent legal fee in accordance with the rules and that the payment collected from the petitioner or the payment received in the filing of a similar action is the one contemplated by the aforesaid ruling and not the check which is the subject matter of consignation.
Respondent further contends that complainant’s allegation that it is sufficient that the receipt of the deposit could have been marked in evidence and the check photocopied in order not to delay its deposit is a responsibility that could not be reposed on respondent but should have been tackled by Atty. Muyco of the Paño, Gonzales, Relova Law Office and the opposing counsel during the pre-trial conference or the succeeding hearing thereafter; that it is not his duty to take the cudgel of lawyering for the parties; and, that it was the check which was marked and not the receipt signifying the parties’ conformity to make the check part and parcel of the record.
Likewise, respondent informs the Court that a similar complaint involving the same issue was lodged against Judge Antonio M. Rosales, the then presiding judge of RTC, Branch 43, Roxas, Oriental Mindoro and that he was surprised at the unexpected turn-around of complainant’s ire against him "when the axe supposedly intended for our judge fell short of the grinding stone, so to speak."
To verify the allegation of respondent that the failure to deposit the check was upon advise of the judge, the OCA referred the matter to Judge Antonio M. Rosales for comment.
In his Comment, Judge Rosales states that the present complaint against the respondent was the subject of an earlier complaint filed by the same complainant against him which was docketed as AM-RTJ-02-1711; that in a full length decision promulgated by the Supreme Court, he was absolved of any wrongdoing; that he submits said decision and adopts it as his reaction to the comment submitted by the respondent.
The OCA recommended that this case be re-docketed as a regular administrative complaint against the respondent and that he be reprimanded for his failure to comply with Circular No. 13-92 with a warning that a repetition of the same omission in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
We do not agree with the recommendations of OCA.
Pertinent portion of SC Circular No. 13-92 reads:
All collections from bailbonds, rental deposits and other fiduciary collections shall be deposited by the Clerk of Court concerned, upon receipt thereof, with an authorized government depository bank. (Emphasis ours)
Circular No. 32-93 refers to collection of legal fees and submission of monthly report of collections.
It is clear from the foregoing circulars that the Clerk of Court is mandated to immediately deposit with the depository bank all collections from bailbonds, rental deposits and other fiduciary collections. The subject check is not a fiduciary collection, per se. It is a check sought to be deposited by the plaintiffs as consignation in accordance with law, the propriety of which is yet to be determined. Respondent exercised prudence in conferring with Judge Rosales whether to deposit the check or not and correctly heeded the advise of the latter not to deposit the check immediately for Judge Rosales believed that the decision to deposit said check was "interwoven with the exercise of judicial function."2 Moreover, complainants had converted the same into a documentary evidence when they had the check marked as their Exhibit "N" during the pre-trial stage.
Considering that just like Judge Rosales in A.M. No. RTJ-02-1711, there is no showing that respondent’s failure to deposit immediately the subject check was prompted by bad faith, malice, corrupt motive or improper consideration,9 respondent should be exonerated from any administrative liability.
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint agent respondent Clerk of Court Atty. Mariano S. Familara lll is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, Quisumbing, Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1 Report on the Financial Audit in RTC, General Santos City and the RTC and MTC of Polomolok, South Cotabato, A.M. No. 96-125-RTC; 327 SCRA 414, 425 (2000).
2 Ex parte Manifestation of Judge Rosales, p. 8; Rollo, p. 61.
3 Relova vs. Rosales, vs. 392 SCRA 585, 594 (2002).
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
