DOLORES C. SELIGER, COMPLAINANT, VS. ALMA P. LICAY, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, SAN JUAN, LA UNION, RESPONDENT.

Seliger versus Licay

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Dolores Seliger charged Alma Licay, the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of San Juan, La Union, with misconduct, irregularity in the performance of duty, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, fraud, and illegal exaction. The complaint arose from a small sum of money, one thousand pesos, collected as a process server fee in a civil case for collection of sum of money that the complainant had filed in the very court where the respondent served. The case matters because it fixes the discipline of court funds: how travel expenses for service of summons must be collected, estimated, and liquidated, and why an acknowledgment receipt can never take the place of an official receipt.

Procedural History

The complainant filed her affidavit-complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator on December 13, 2010. The Office of the Court Administrator directed the respondent to comment, and she did, admitting the collection and defending the receipt she issued. The Office of the Court Administrator then submitted its report, finding the respondent guilty of simple misconduct and recommending a fine of one thousand pesos with a warning. The matter was docketed as a regular administrative matter and resolved by the Supreme Court itself, which adopts the findings and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator.

Facts

The complainant had filed a civil case for collection of sum of money with damages against Venecio Licay, the husband of the respondent, in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of San Juan, La Union, where the respondent was Clerk of Court. The respondent collected and received from the complainant one thousand pesos purportedly as a process server fee. Instead of issuing an official receipt, she issued an acknowledgment receipt. The complainant also alleged that the respondent slept on her job and deliberately delayed the service of summons on her husband.

In her comment, the respondent admitted collecting the amount. She reasoned that the administrative circular on the matter provides for the payment of one thousand pesos to defray the actual travel expenses of the sheriff, process server, or other court-authorized persons in the service of summons and other court processes. She explained that since the process server fee did not fall under the Judiciary Development Fund or the Special Allowance for the Judiciary, an acknowledgment receipt was sufficient. She insisted she had no corrupt motive and did not appropriate the amount for her personal benefit.

She likewise denied any wrongful intent to delay the proceedings, saying that while it was part of her duty to issue the summons, the actual service was the responsibility of the process server. The Office of the Court Administrator found that the complainant failed to substantiate the charges of corruption and of deliberate delay.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent violated the rule on the deposit and handling of the one thousand peso process server fee under Section 10, paragraph l, of Rule 141.
• Whether or not the respondent violated the circular requiring the issuance of an official receipt for payments received.
• Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable, and if so, for what offense and what penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Section 10, paragraph l, of Rule 141 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.

This provision defines the respondent's duty as custodian of the deposit and requires an estimate before collection and a liquidation after service, which she did not observe.

Section 113 of Supreme Court Circular Number 26-27 dated May 5, 1997 provides:

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.

This is the circular the respondent violated when she issued an acknowledgment receipt instead of an official receipt.

Section 22, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order Number 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service Laws provides:

Section 22. Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave, and light, based on the gravity of its detrimental effect to the public interest and public service. The following are the less grave offenses with their corresponding penalties: x x x Simple Misconduct - 1st offense - Suspension (1 month and 1 day to 6 months) - 2nd offense - Dismissal

This provision classifies simple misconduct as a less grave offense and supplies the range of penalties from which the Court chose.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agrees with the Office of the Court Administrator that the respondent violated Section 10, paragraph l, of Rule 141. While the rule allows the deposit of one thousand pesos to defray actual travel expenses, it requires court personnel to first make an estimate of the travel expenses before collecting the amount, and thereafter to submit a statement of liquidation to the court. The respondent did neither. As Clerk of Court, she performs a very delicate function: she acts as cashier and disbursement officer of the court, entrusted to collect and receive all monies paid as legal fees, deposits, fines, and dues, and to control their disbursement. She is therefore expected to possess a high degree of discipline and efficiency.

On the second issue, the Court holds that when the respondent issued an acknowledgment receipt instead of an official receipt, she violated the circular mandating official receipts for payments received. Her explanation that the acknowledgment receipt sufficed because the process server fee was not part of the Judiciary Development Fund or the Special Allowance for the Judiciary was not a valid justification. She violated the trust and confidence reposed in her as cashier and disbursement officer. The Court will not tolerate any conduct, act, or omission by any court employee that violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes or tends to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary. A public office is a public trust, and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people.

On the third issue, the Court finds the respondent guilty of simple misconduct. Simple misconduct is a less grave offense carrying, for a first offense, suspension of one month and one day to six months, and dismissal for a second offense. Considering that this is her first infraction, the Court deems it proper to reduce the penalty.

Doctrine

A Clerk of Court is the court's cashier and disbursement officer and must observe a high degree of discipline and efficiency in handling court funds. Under Section 10, paragraph l, of Rule 141, the one thousand peso deposit for travel expenses may be collected only after an estimate of travel expenses is submitted to and approved by the court, and a statement of liquidation must follow after service; any excess is returned to the depositor after judgment. Under Section 113 of Supreme Court Circular Number 26-27, no payment of any nature may be received by a collecting officer without immediately issuing an official receipt; an acknowledgment receipt is never a substitute, whatever the fund to which the money belongs. A violation of these rules constitutes simple misconduct, a less grave offense penalized under Section 22, Rule XIV of the Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order Number 292.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of simple misconduct and imposed on her a fine of one thousand pesos, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the line that no payment of any nature shall be received by a collecting officer without immediately issuing an official receipt, and that the process server deposit requires an estimate before collection and a liquidation after service. Examiners use this case in legal ethics and judicial administration to test the duties of a Clerk of Court as cashier and disbursement officer, and to distinguish simple misconduct from graver offenses when no corruption is proven.