Handout for Clerks of Court

COLLECTION OF FEES – by DSI

I. INTRODUCTION

Assessment & Collection of Docket Fees Being Judicial in Nature

Substitution of Docket Fees Not Allowed

Refund of Filing Fees Not Allowed

Proceeds from Sale of Exhibits Shall Accrue to JDF

Fines Imposed in Violation of Ordinance Shall Accrue to the Issuer

Net Interest Earned & Confiscated Bond Shall Not Totally Accrue to GF

II. FUNCTIONS, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLERK OF COURT/ACCOUNTABLE OFFICERS

III. COURT FUNDS

All Court Funds and Its Particulars

Mediation Fund

Sheriff’s/Process Server’s Fund

IV. MONTHLY REPORTS OF COLLECTIONS, DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS

V. RULE 141 OF THE RULES OF COURT AND ASSESSMENT & COLLECTION OF DOCKET FEES

Suspended Provisions

Related Sections

Estafa Cases

Procedural Guidelines for BP Blg. 22

VI. THOSE EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES

VII. P1,000.00 DEPOSIT (STF) WITH THE COURT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE SHERIFF’S FEES

VIII. ASSESSMENT AND COMPUTATION OF DOCKET FEES

IX. CORPORATE REHABILITATION (Required Attachment For Docket Fees’ Computation)

X. EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE

Court Procedures Related Court Issuances & Clarification Computation Exercises

XI. SMALL CLAIMS

XII. ELECTION CONTEST/PROTEST

XIII. RETIREMENT/RESIGNATION/PROMOTION/TRANSFER

XIV. CHECKLIST OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FINANCIAL AUDIT OF THE ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER’S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS

By: Dexter S. IlaganOfficer-In-ChargeFiscal Monitoring DivisionCourt Management Office, OCASupreme Court

1


I. INTRODUCTION:

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION RULE – words used in statutes are to be given their usual and commonly understood meanings unless different meanings are plainly intended.

I.1. ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF DOCKET FEES ARE JUDICIAL IN NATURE AND THE OCA HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE IT.

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 42-20051, dated April 22, 2005, in relation to the resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 8, 2005 in A.M. No. 05-3-03-0. The Court resolved, upon the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, that:

(a) Questions relating to the assessment and collection of docket fees are judicial in nature that should only be determined by the regular courts and not through administrative proceedings; and

(b) Clarifying that the OCA has no authority to determine whether or not the docket fees assessed or collected is proper or correct under applicable rules, the same being a judicial matter.

I.2. SUBSTITUTION OF PAYMENTS OF DOCKET FEES FROM ONE COURT STATION TO ANOTHER IS NOT ALLOWED.

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 95-20102, dated July 12, 2010, prohibits the substitution of payments of docket fees from one court station to another pursuant to Supreme Court En Banc Resolution dated June 15, 2010, A.M. No. 10-4-122-RTC. The Court Resolved, upon recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, that substitution of payments of docket fees from one court station to another, as a result of erroneous filing of cases by reason of improper jurisdiction/venue, is not allowed.

I.3 REFUND OF FILING FEES PAID TO THE COURT IS NOT ALLOWED.

In a resolution of the Second Division, A.M. No. 09-2-67-RTC (RE: Request for the Refund of Filing Fees paid to RTC, Dumaguete City, in Civil Case No. 08-14250), where the RTC, Dumaguete City dismissed motion requesting the approval of refund of the filing fees paid in Civil Case No. 08-14250 citing AM. No. 05-9-2566-MeTC, where the Court ruled that it is only the Chief Justice who can authorize the refund/withdrawal of filing fees paid in court, hence this petition;

The Court resolves to deny the request for the approval of refund of Mr. Andrew Thomas Byrne for lack of merit, citing:

“that as a matter of policy, the Court looks with disfavour at the grant of any request for the refund as this will set a dangerous precedent and encourage litigants to file similar claims; and that the Court’s pronouncement in Eriberto N. Suson vs. Court of Appeals and David S. Odilao, Jr., G.R. No. 126749, August 21, 1997 is elucidating when it held: “filing fees are intended to take care of court expenses in the handling of

1 Annex A2 Annex B

2


cases in terms of cost of supplies, use of equipment, salaries and fringe benefits of personnel, etc., computed as to man-hours used in handling each case. The payment of said fees therefore cannot be made dependent on the result of the action taken without entailing tremendous losses to the government and to the Judiciary in particular.

I.4 PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF EXHIBITS SHALL BE DEPOSITED TO JDF.

Administrative Order No. 170-2008, dated November 11, 2008, directs the Clerk of Court to remit to the Judiciary Development Fund the proceeds from sale under a separate Remittance Advice to the credit of the court involved with notice of such remittance furnished the Office of the Court Administrator.

I.5 FINES IMPOSED IN VIOLATION OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE SHALL ACCRUE TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

In OCA CIRCULAR No. 10-2002, dated February 5, 2002, the Second Division of the Supreme Court in its resolution dated January 14, 2002 under Administrative Matter No. 01-10-262-MTC, Re: Letter dated September 25, 2000 of Anita D. Macawile, Clerk of Court, MTC, Babatngon, Leyte, resolved to:

“xxx (1) CONSIDER the fines paid for violations of local ordinances to have accrued exclusively to the local government; xxx”

All Clerks of Court are hereby directed to remit to the local government unit, the fines paid for violations of local ordinances.

I.6 NOT ALL NET INTEREST EARNED AND CONFISCATED BOND SHALL ACCRUE TO THE NATIONAL TREASURY [GENERAL FUND].

In a Court en banc resolution dated January 18, 2011, concerning A.M. No. 05-3-35-SC (Re: Audit Observation Memorandum) and A.M. No. 10-8-3-SC (Re: Fiduciary Fund Deposits Not Remitted to the Bureau of Treasury) , the Court ruled that:

1. Fiduciary Funds in custodia legis shall remain under the custody and control of the courts, to be deposited and disposed of as the courts may direct in the exercise of their judicial functions.

2. Interests on funds in custodia legis belong to the owners of the principal of the funds, and shall be returned to the owners as may be directed by the Court, subject to a service fee of 10% per annum of the interest earned which shall accrue to the Judiciary Development Fund in accordance with PD 1949, as amended, provided that this service fee shall not apply to funds of the government.

3. Interest on deposits of the Judiciary Development Fund belong to the beneficiaries of the JDF, and thus such interest form part of the JDF and shall not be remitted to the National Treasury.

4. Forfeited cash deposits made to guarantee undertakings in favor of the government, and the interest thereon, are income of the government and shall be remitted to the National Treasury.

3


5. Fiduciary funds deposited with the Court in its administrative capacity, and not in custodia legis, shall be remitted to the National Treasury in accordance with Joint Circular No. 1-97.

6. Unclaimed fiduciary funds of private parties, including the interest thereon, shall remain with the courts until a law is passed authorizing the escheat or forfeiture of such unclaimed funds in favour of the State.

7. The amounts previously remitted by the Court to the National Treasury under the staggered payments proposed by former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno to the Commission on Audit shall be credited to whatever amounts the Court is required to remit to the National Treasury under paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 above.

II. FUNCTIONS, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLERK OF COURT/ACCOUNTABLE OFFICERS:

Under the Supreme Court Manual for the Clerks of Court, the general functions and duties of the Clerk of Court [Accountable Officer] are as follows:

(1) the administrative officer of the Court under the supervision of the Executive Judge;

(2) Has control and supervision over his personnel, all properties and supplies in his office;

(3) Acts on applications for leave of absence and signs daily time records of his staff, as well as the security and janitorial services personnel;

(4) Determines docket fees;(5) Assists in the raffle of cases to the branches and judicial

notices/summons to accredited publishers;(6) Issues clearances in appropriate cases;(7) Acts as ex-officio notary public;(8) Acts as ex-officio sheriff;(9) Represents the Court in administrative dealings with the local

government units and other agencies; and(10) Performs and discharges such duties as may be assigned by the

Executive Judge.

The Supreme Court ruled on the functions and duties of all Clerks of Court (Accountable Officers), they are, but not limited to:

A) CLERK OF COURT’S FUNCTIONS/DUTIES ARE NOT MERELY MINISTERIAL.

BSP v. Executive Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas, et. al, A.M.No. RTJ-06-1999 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1903-RTJ].

FACTS:

The COC allowed the withdrawal and release from the custody of the court garnished funds for Civil Case No. 99-95993 of RTC-Manila, Branch 12, entitled BSP v. Orient Commercial Banking Corporation, et. al., in the total amount of P97,388,468.35 to the Philippine Bank of

4


Communications (PBCOM) and its counsel of record who are not parties to the case. PBCOM was the petitioner in a separate Civil Case, with No. 01-101190 filed with the RTC-Manila, Branch 42, entitled PBCOM v. Spouses Jose C. Go and Elvy T. Go, who were part owners of the Orient Commercial Banking Corporation.

COC claimed that she was not aware that the garnished amounts do not belong to Spouses Jose C. Go and Elvy T. Go; alleged that the release of the questioned funds to PBCOM was done in line with her ministerial duty as clerk of court; and that the release was in good faith, especially after she had been assured that the amount was garnished and identified as belonging to parties against whom the notice of garnishment was enforced.

The SC ruled that the disputed funds were clearly under the custody of Branch 12, not Branch 42.

The Supreme Court held that:

“Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff xxx cannot avoid liability by hiding behind the mantle of “performance of a ministerial duty”. She cannot merely say that she found the supporting papers for the release of the funds to be in order. xxx she knew or should have known that the funds were under the custody of Judge xxx of RTC, Branch 12, xxx, who, as early as February 7, 2000, issued an order directing the Clerk of Court, xxx, to refer to the court all payments from lessees of the defendants in Civil Case No. 99-95993 to the court, for its proper control. If as she said, her 15 years of service in the judiciary have been marked by competence on her part, we wonder why she did not check the background of the documents presented to her, especially in light of Judge Carandang’s order and the big amounts involved. xxx simply overlooked the need for her to carefully examine the papers brought to her by Cachero. She should have exercised prudence before taking action on the papers. Funds in custodia legis pass through her office en route to safekeeping (in depository banks) and for purpose of release. We, thus, find her liable for neglect in the performance of her duties.”

The Clerk of Court was declared guilty of simple neglect of duty, and is suspended for three (3) months without pay.

B) CLERK OF COURT SHOULD EXERCISE SERVICE WITH LOYALTY, INTEGRITY AND EFFICIENCY; CHARGED WITH PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF COURT PROCEEDINGS .

OCA v. Atty. Fermin M. Ofilas and Ms. Aranzazu V. Baltazar, COC VI and Clerk IV, respectively, both of the RTC of San Mateo, Rizal, A.M. No. P-05-1935, April 23, 2010.

5


FACTS:

The Clerk of Court, Atty. Fermin Ofilas, delegated the financial transactions of the court to his two subordinates, namely Clerk IV Aranzazu V. Baltazar, former cash clerk of Atty. Ofilas’ predecessor; and Olga A. Sacramento, the incumbent cash clerk at the time of the audit who assumed office on May 2001.

Ms. Baltazar was in charge of all funds collected and paid to the court. She issued official receipts for all funds collected, prepared the monthly reports of collections, and made bank deposits and withdrawals for submission to the Accounting Division of the OCA. She was practically the custodian of all court financial records and books of accounts. Although she was the then cash clerk, Ms. Sacramento merely assisted in the preparation of monthly reports and only issued official receipts in the absence of Ms. Baltazar.

During the cash count of the auditors, the amount of unremitted cash collections in the possession of Ms. Baltazar did not tally with the amount collected for the respective periods, resulting in an overage of P39,152.00 which was due to unaccounted/unremitted collections from past years. Atty. Ofilas voluntarily executed an affidavit, dated March 11, 2004. He stated that because Executive Judge Elizabeth Balquin-Reyes politely declined to be one of the signatories for the court’s bank transactions until the issuance of her official designation, the office adopted the practice of retaining some amount of cash from the collections in order to answer for the refunds of cash bonds of litigants. Thereafter, he relieved Ms. Baltazar of her functions as collecting officer.

Accountable forms such as triplicate copies, official receipts and official cashbooks were in disarray. Some were detached from their respective booklets. Cancelled/spoiled Official Receipts were not properly marked or identified and the original and duplicate copies of the cancelled or spoiled receipts were not attached to the triplicates.

The official cash books were not properly accomplished and contained illegible entries. Daily collections were not regularly entered therein contrary to AC Nos. 3-2000, 22-94 and 32-93.

There were discrepancies and irregularities in the financial transactions which resulted to cash shortage of more than P2.3M.

An aggregate total of P279,200.00 confiscated cash bond was disclosed. Cashbonds with order of confiscation since 1992 were not withdrawn and remitted to the National Treasury (up to November 1999) and to the Judiciary Development Fund (from November 1999).

Atty. Ofilas was found to have deposited the amount of P3,444,070.00 in his personal account because he was allegedly unfamiliar with the Sheriff Trust Fund Account. Atty. Ofilas was reprimanded and sternly warned by the court.

6


Clerk IV and former Cash Clerk Ms. Baltazar readily confessed her shortage and willingly executed an affidavit, admitting that she had committed grave negligence and malversation of funds when she allowed other court employees to borrow from the court funds in her custody, causing the shortage as discovered by the audit team.

With respect to records of extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage, the audit team found it difficult to determine payment of the sheriff’s commission because the Official Receipts issued in connection with the applications did not reflect the case numbers and, worse, the receipts were not attached to the records. Out of 2,650 petitions filed as of March 5, 2004, only 2,491 case folders were presented for audit.

A significant number of check payments were converted to cash instead of being directly deposited to the Judicial Development Fund and the General Fund.

Atty. Ofilas refuted the charges against him. He blamed the lack of orientation and proper turnover of responsibilities and accountabilities when he assumed the functions of his office on January 28, 1992. Unaware of the basic procedures of his new office, he decided to let the staff continue what they had been doing, especially Ms. Baltazar who was in charge of the financial transactions of the court from the collection of legal fees, remittance thereof to the depositary bank, safekeeping of the daily collections, and the preparation of monthly financial reports and books of accounts.

RULING:


“No less than the Constitution mandates that “public office is a public trust.” Service with loyalty, integrity and efficiency is required of all public officers and employees, who must, at all times, be accountable to the people. In a long line of cases, the Court had untiringly reminded employees involved in the administration of justice to faithfully adhere to their mandated duties and responsibilities. Whether committed by the highest judicial official or by the lowest member of the workforce, any act of impropriety can seriously erode the people’s confidence in the Judiciary. “Verily, the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct of its personnel. It is their sacred duty to maintain the good name and standing of the court as a true temple of justice.”

“Next to the Judge, the clerk of court is the chief administrative officer charged with preserving the integrity of court proceedings. A number of non-judicial concerns connected with trial and adjudication of cases is handled by the clerk of court, demanding a dynamic performance of duties, with the prompt and proper administration of justice as the constant objective. The nature of

7


the work and of the office mandates that the clerk of court be an individual of competence, honesty and integrity.

Court personnel tasked with collections of court funds, such as clerk of court and cash clerks, should deposit immediately with authorized government depositories the various funds in their custody. Delayed remittance of cash collections constitutes gross neglect of duty because this omission deprives the court of interest that may be earned if the amounts are deposited in a bank.”

“Atty. Fermin M. Ofilas, former Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, San Mateo, Rizal is hereby found GUILTY of gross inefficiency with FORFEITURE of all his retirement benefits, except his terminal leave pay. Further, he is DISQUALIFIED from re-employment in any branch or instrumentality in the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.”

C) CLERK OF COURT SHOULD NOT ISSUE HANDWRITTEN RECEIPTS.

In the case of OCA vs. GREGORIO B. SADDI, Clerk of Court, MTC, Sasmuan, Pampanga, A.M. No. P-10-2818, Formerly A.M. No. 10-4-54-MTC, the Supreme Court held that:

“Saddi’s act of issuing a handwritten receipt for the payment of the execution fee did not satisfy the requirement of SC Circular No. 26-97 for a clerk of court to issue official receipts promptly for all monies received by him. The circular specifically provides for the form which said official receipts may take, that is, either in the form of stamps or officially numbered receipts – never handwritten. Moreover, there is no indication that Saddi properly accounted for, remitted and reported such payment under the JDF Account.

By these deplorable acts of gross dishonesty, grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty, Saddi has, no doubt, undermined the people’s faith in the courts and, ultimately, in the administration of justice. Dishonesty alone, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service. Dishonesty has no place in the Judiciary. Gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct, likewise, carry the same penalty.

The Clerk of Court was held GUILTY of Gross Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty and of violating SC Circular No. 26-97, and all his retirement benefits were forfeited, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

8


D) CLERK OF COURT’S RELIANCE ON EMPLOYEES OF LOWER RANK PROJECTS NOTHING ELSE BUT GROSS INEFFICIENCY AND INCOMPETENCE.

In the case of OCA v. Atty. Magdalena L. Lometillo, et. al., A.M. No. P-09-

2637, April 5, 2011, the Court held that:

“Service with loyalty, integrity and efficiency is required of all public officers and employees, who must, at all time, be accountable to the people.

The performance of one’s duties in a perfunctory manner is never justified especially when reliance on employees of lower rank projects nothing else but gross inefficiency and incompetence.

Encashing postdated checks of employees is unacceptable and dangerous laxity in her style of supervision over the staff, regardless of later issuance of memorandum prohibiting the same.

Mediocrity is not at all fit for a member of a competent tasked to dispensed justice. Her failure to exhibit administrative leadership and ability renders her guilty of negligence, incompetence and gross inefficiency in the performance of her official duty as Clerk of Court.”

E) CLERK OF COURT IS TASKED TO ENSURE THAT HIS/HER SUBORNINATES PERFORM THEIR DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS.

In the case of OCA v. Bernardino, A.M. No. P-97-1258, January 31, 2009,

450 SCRA 89, 116, the Court held that:

“Clerk of Court “can not pass the blame for the shortages incurred to his/her subordinates who perform the task of handling, depositing, and recording of cash and check deposits xxx” for it is “incumbent upon the Clerk of Court to ensure his/her subordinates are performing his/her duties and responsibilities in accordance with the circulars on deposits and collections to ensure that all court funds are properly accounted for.”

F) CLERK OF COURT IS THE CUSTODIAN OF THE COURT’S FUNDS, REVENUES, RECORDS, PROPERTY AND PREMISES.

In the case of OCA v. Orbigo-Marcelo, 416 Phil. 356, 364 (2001), the Court held that:

“The Clerks of Court perform a very delicate function as custodian of the court’s funds, revenues, records, property and premises.”

G) CLERK OF COURT IS MULTI-TASKED.

In the case of OCA v. Elumbaring, A.M. No. P-10-2765, September 13, 2011, respondent failed to submit financial reports since March 2006, and

9


incurred cash shortages in the FF, SAJF and JDF amounting to P85,540.45, P153,356.47 and P90,578.23, respectively, resulted from the accumulated non-remittance of these collections, as of November 18, 2008. Elumbaring engaged in the practice of lapping collection and remittances, and delayed the refund of cash bonds for not less than 20 days even the same was already withdrawn right after the issuance of the court order.

Elumbaring disputed the audit team’s findings by submitting machine-validated deposit slips for JDF and SAJF amounting to P90,578.23 and P153,356.47, both dated November 28, 2008. Shortage in FF was partially restituted on November 19 and 28, 2008 in the amounts of P21,000 and P50,000.00, respectively, leaving a balance of accountability of P14,540.45.

Elumbaring likewise argued that she does not know to operate a computer and relied on the court personnel to do the financial reports. She also claimed that it was not stated in her job description as clerk of court that she will act as the “financial accountable officer”. She said that if she had known earlier, she would not have applied for the position as she knew she was not suited for that kind of work.

RULING:

Citing the case of OCA v. Roque, A.M. No. P-06-2200, February 4, 2009, 578 SCRA 21, 26, the Supreme Court held that:

“Clerks of Court wear many hats – those of treasurer, accountant, guard and physical plant manager of the court, hence, they are “entrusted with the primary responsibility of correctly and effectively implementing regulations regarding fiduciary funds” and are thus, “liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of such funds and property.”

Elumbaring was found GUILTY of DISHONESTY and DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

H) PERSONAL FINANCIAL PROBLEMS CAN NEVER BE A VALID EXCUSE FOR USING COURT FUND.

In the case of OCA v. Nacuray, A.M. No. P-03-1739, April 7, 2006, where respondent was found guilty of series of tampering of the amounts in the duplicate and triplicate copy of the official receipts. Respondent admitted that she altered the amount paid to her by understating the same in the duplicate copy of the OR, which is the copy submitted to the Supreme Court. The figures indicated therein are the same figures reported as collections and are the basis of deposits made with the Landbank of the Philippines. Respondent, however, reflected the correct amount paid in the original copy of the receipt [which is given to the payor], and in the triplicate copy [which is retained by the OCC] for record and authentication purposes. Respondent

10


simply reasoned that financial difficulties had led her to misappropriate the court’s funds.


“xxx Personal problems cannot justify the misuse by any court employee of judiciary funds in their custody.10 Those are government funds, and public servants have absolutely no right to use them for their own purposes. xxx

WHEREFORE, respondent Normalyn P. Nacuray is found GUILTY of gross dishonesty and grave misconduct and is DISMISSED from the service, effective immediately. All benefits -- except accrued leave credits, if any -- are also FORFEITED, with prejudice to her reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including any government-owned and -controlled corporation. She is further ORDERED to restitute the amount of seven hundred seventy-seven thousand seven hundred seventy-three pesos and eighty-six centavos (P777,773.86).”

I) CLERK OF COURT CANNOT RESORT TO PROTESTATION OF GOOD FAITH TO OVERRIDE THE MANDATORY NATURE OF THE CIRCULARS.

In the case of OCA v. Maura D. Campano, Clerk of Court, MTC, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro; Nestor Robles, MCTC, Magsaysay-Rizal-Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro; and Yolanda A. Bonus, Interpreter I, MCTC, Magsaysay-Rizal-Calintaan, Occidental Mindoro, A.M. Nos. P-04-1787 & P-05-1980:

FACTS:

Respondents were just involved in the irregularities committed by their former presiding judge, Josefino A. Garillo. Respondents incurred cash shortages because their former judge was borrowing money from the Fiduciary Fund collections. One of the respondents, Ms. Bonus, acceded to the instruction of Judge Garillo to tamper with the records to cover up the borrowings of the latter. Judge Garillo would personally received the cash bonds posted and would instruct Ms. Bonus to use the JDF official receipts and make it appear that they just received a fee amounting to P10.00 or P20.00. According to the respondents, Judge Garillo never once handed over the fees he received for officiating weddings and usually committing extortions.

Respondents felt constrained to hand over the money because Judge Garillo was insistent. Respondents reasoned out that they were not in the position to question his authority.

RULINGS OF THE COURT:

“Sadly, it was the judge himself in this case who master-minded the mindless pilferage of court funds. And fully knowing that the judge was helping himself into the money, the court staff involved

11

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/apr2006/am_p_03_1739_2006.html#fnt10


took no action to protect the court’s interest. The Court cannot rule out the possibility that they were helping themselves, too, to that money.

xxx

As regards the liabilities of Clerk of Courts Campano and Robles and in the latter’s place, court interpreter Bonus, this Court cannot accept the uniform excuse that they proffer, namely, Garillo’s persistence and official ascendance left them no choice but to let him dip his fingers into the court funds and, further, help him cover-up the paper trail of his illegal deeds. As accountable officers, the subordinate employees mentioned had the task of : 1) collecting the proper amount of fees from parties, counsels, or surety companies; 2)issuing original recipts for all amounts collected, and not merely furnish parties with photocopies; 3) taking all reasonable steps to maximize the risk of losses, defalcations, and other types of irregularities; and 4) immediately depositing collected amounts with the LBP. xxx

xxx

xxx, the safekeeping of funds and collections is essential to an orderly administration of justice, and no protestation of good faith can override the mandatory nature of the circulars designed to promote full accountability for government funds.”(OCA vs. Bernardino)

The Court finds respondents GUILTY OF DISHONESTY AND GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY for misappropriation of funds, tampering of with official receipts, and failure to comply with the rules on depositing judiciary funds; DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of their benefits, except accrued leave credits.

Judge Garillo, who was already dismissed from the service, directed to pay the amount he misappropriated and fined P200,000.00 and forfeited his accrued leave credits. The OCA Legal Office was diected to file the appropriate criminal charges.

J) APPLYING FOR BAIL REQUIRES COMPLIANCE WITH A PROCEDURE INTENDED TO PREVENT ABUSES OR IRREGULARITIES FROM BEING COMMITTED.

In the case of Executive Judge Edwin A. Villasor v. Judge Rodolfo R. Bonifacio, Regional Trial Court, Branch 159, et al., A.M. No. RTJ-05-1907 [Formerly A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 04-9-510-RTC*], December 6, 2006:

FACTS:

On July 22, 2004, at about 4:25 in the afternoon, Atty. Belvis was approached by City Prosecutor Dennis Pastrana regarding the posting of a

* Entitled “Report of Executive Judge Edwin A. Villasor, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, on the incident which transpired on July 22, 2004 at the Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Pasig City.”

12


cash bond by a certain Rodolfo “Rudy” Lantano. No Information having been filed against Lantano, Atty. Belvis gave the prosecution time to file it. She waited until 4:40 p.m. of that day but as no information was filed, she instructed Cash Clerk III Edna Samar (Edna) to close the Cashier’s Office and left.

The next day, July 23, 2004, before 8:00 a.m., she was informed by Administrative Officer II Teresita Wanason (Teresita) and Edna that 3 sets of official receipts corresponding to Fiduciary Fund, Judiciary Development Fund, and SAJ Fund were missing. After a fruitless search in the Cashier’s Office, a call was made to respondent Clerk IV Rosalie San Juan (Rosalie) to ask her if somebody had posted a cash bond the day before. Rosalie answered in the affirmative. At around 8:25 a.m. of the same day Rosalie brought to the cashier 3 sets of receipts and the P81,200 bond she had received.

According to Rosalie, on or about 6:00 p.m., Thursday, July 22, 2004, while she was resting in Branch 68 after playing badminton, Mr. Arnel Leynes, Clerk III, office of the Clerk of Court together with a certain Atty. Art Naciongaling, lawyer of the detained accused approached her to issue a receipt on a cash bond for the release of the abovementioned accused but she refused to do so since it was past working hours. After about 30 minutes, the daughter of the accused came and pleaded that her father (the accused) is very old and very sick and needs to be brought to the hospital as soon as possible. Rosalie was so touched and with compassion, reluctantly entered the Cashier’s Office and took the official receipts, with the help of her friends, and issued official receipts in consideration of the cash bond posted and corresponding filing fees paid.

RULING:

The Court adopts the recommendation of the OCA that the Regional

Trial Court, Branch 159:

“xxx finds as patently highly irregular and anomalous the processing of the application for bail – the receipt of the cash bond and the issuance of the release order – on 22 July 2004 at the Pasig City RTC. Applying for bail requires compliance with a procedure intended to prevent abuses or irregularities from being committed. A case must be duly filed before the court, properly docketed thereat and the legal fees paid. If the bail is granted, certain documents and other attachments need to be appended to the records of the case before an accused may be released from custody.”

The Court finds respondent Rosalie G. San Juan and Mr. Arnel D. Leynes, Clerk IV and Clerk III, respectively, at the Pasig City Regional Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, guilty of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT for which they are SUSPENDED from office for One (1) Month and One (1) Day without pay, effective upon receipt of this

13


Decision, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.

III. COURT FUNDS

(1) Fiduciary Fund (FF)

Statement of Withdrawn and Unwithdrawn Fiduciary Fund3

Bank Statement, Passbook, Bank-Book Reconciliation Statement Deposit and Withdrawal Slips Statement of Collections and Withdrawals Schedule of Interest Earned4

Schedule of Confiscated Bonds Cashbook Inventory of Official Receipts

(2) Sheriff’s Trust Fund (STF)

Statement of Withdrawn and Unwithdrawn Sheriff Trust Fund, with Liquidation Column5

Statement of Estimated Travel Expenses6 with Disbursement Voucher Statement of Liquidation7

Bank Statement, Passbook, Bank-Book Reconciliation Statement Deposit and Withdrawal Slips Statement of Collections and Withdrawals Schedule of Interest Earned Cashbook Inventory of Official Receipts

(3) Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)

(4) Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJF)

(5) General Fund (GF)

(6) Mediation Fund (MF)

(7) Victim’s Compensation Fund (VCF)

(8) Land Registration Authority (LRA)

(9) Legal Research Fund (LRF)

(10) Notarial Register Fund (NRF)

# FUNDSBASIS/IMPLEMENTING

GUIDELINESEFFECTIVITY

BANK ACCOUNT/ WHERE & WHEN TO

SUBMIT REPORTSCOMPOSITION

1. Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)

PD No. 1949/AM No. 35-2004 & OCA Circular No. 113-2004

Oct 1, 1984 Accounting DivisionFMO, OCA, SC

On the 10th of the following month

1. Allocated fees prescribed in the Rule 141 of the Rules of Court;

2. 10% Service Fee per annum of Interest Earned on deposits in the Fiduciary Fund.

2. Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF)

RA No. 9227/AM No. 35-2004 & OCA Circular No. 113-2004

Nov 11, 2003 Accounting DivisionFMO, OCA, SC


1. Allocated fees prescribed in the Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended;

2. Court Fines

3. General Fund (GF)

AM No. 35-2004 & OCA Circular No. 113-2004 &

Accounting DivisionFMO, OCA, SC

1. Confiscated Bail bonds; 2. Interest Earned on Bail Bond Deposits,

3 Annex C4 Annex D5 Annex E6 Annex F7 Annex G

14


AM No. 05-3-35-SCOn the 10th of the following month

net of 10% Service Fee per annum.

4. Mediation Fund (MF)

OCA Circular No. 51-2011/OCA Circular No. 58-2007

Aug 16, 2004 LBP SA No. 3472-1000-08

Financial & Management Office,

PHILJA, SC


1. Complaint or Answer with mediatable permissive counterclaim or cross claim, complaint in intervention, third-party complaint, forth party complaint, etc. in civil cases, a Petition, an Opposition, and a Creditors Claim in Special Proceedings;

2. Complaint/Information for Offenses with maximum imposable penalty of prision correcional in its maximum period of six years imprisonment, except where the civil liability reserved or is subject of a separate action

3. Complaint /Information for estafa, theft, and libel cases, except where the civil liability is reserved or is subject of a separate action;

4. Complaint/Information for Quasi-Offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code;

5. Intellectual Property Cases;6. Commercial or Corporate cases;7. Environmental Cases.

5. Fiduciary Fund (FF)

OCA Circular No. 50-95 & OCA Circular No. 113-2004

From the start of operation

VARIOUSAccounting Division

FMO, OCA, SC


1. Cash Bonds;2. Consignations (Rental Deposits; Deposit

for Expropriations; Redemptioner’s Bond)3. Supersedeas Bonds;4. Cash Deposits in Election Protest

(Revisor’s Fee & P25,000 for the cost of bringing and storing the PCOS & other machines/election paraphernalia)

5. P1,000 deposits for Sheriff’s/Process Server’s Fund (if cannot maintain the required maintaining balance of LBP)

6. Sheriff’s/Process Server’s Trust Fund (STF)

AM No. 35-2004 & OCA Circular No. 113-2004

Aug 16, 2004 VARIOUSAccounting Division

FMO, OCA, SC


P1,000 deposit 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.

7. Victim’s Compensation Fund (VCF)

RA No. 7309/OCA Circular No. 59-94 & AM No. 35-2004

Mar 1, 2000 LBP CA No.0592-1022-42

Financial & Management Service,

DOJ

Quarterly Basis

P5.00 collected for the filing of every complaint or petition initiating ordinary or special civil action or special proceeding, including civil actions impliedly instituted with criminal actions under Rule 111 of the Revised Rule of Criminal Procedure where a filing fee is likewise collected.

8. Legal Research Fund (LRF)

RA No. 3870, as amended by PD No. 1856/OCA Circular No. 134-2003

Dec 26, 1982 LBP SA No. 1461-0927-36

UP Law Center, Bocobo Hall, Diliman,

QC 1101

Quarterly Basis

one percent (1%) of the filing fee imposed, but in no case lower than Twenty Pesos, in the case of the appellate courts and the additional amount of one percent (1%) of the filing fee imposed, but in no case lower than Ten Pesos in the case of all other courts, including all administrative or special courts, as well as agencies or tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions and those enumerated in Letter of Instructions No. 1182, issued on December 16, 1981, shall be collected by their respective clerks of court, or equivalent functionary, for each action or special proceeding filed therewith and for which the fees prescribed in the Rules of Court or in any statute or regulation as due and payable. For this purpose, "special proceeding" shall include any petition or application, paper or document seeking official action to establish a status, a right, privilege or particular fact or command the performance of a duty.

9. Land Registration Authority

PD No. 1529/OCA Circular No. 24-2003

Feb 1, 2003 LBP SA No. 0012-2223-86

Fees payable to the Commissioner of Land Registration.

15


(CADASTRAL FUND)

Chief Accountant, Land Registration Authority

Quarterly Basis10. Notarial

Register Fund (NRF)

AM No. 02-8-13-SC/OCA Circular No. 157-2006

Nov 16, 2006 LBP SA No. 3472-1000-32

Accounting DivisionFMO, OCA, SC


Price of Notarial Register Book ordered from the Supreme Court.

MEDIATION FUND (MF)

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 44-2012 dated May 28, 2012, clarified the reiteration made in OCA Circular No. 14-2012 dated March 1, 2012. OCA Circular No. 14-2012 reiterated the Provisions I [Paragraph A (1)] and II [Paragraphs 4 and 5] of OCA Circular No. 58-2007, and Restatement of Provision I, Paragraph A (1) thereof, providing, among others, that the Clerks of Court, Officers-In-Charge, or their duly authorized officers shall deposit daily the collections accruing to the Fund with the SC PHILJA PMC Trust Fund (Rule 141) LBP Savings Account No. 3472-1000-08 [MEDIATION FUND].

The letter (b) provision of OCA Circular No. 14-2012, which stated another LBP account of the Mediation Fund, should be disregarded since it was already closed and inoperative account.

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 51-2011, dated April 6, 2011, A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC PHILJA, dated January 11, 2011:1. Complaint or Answer with mediatable permissive counterclaim or cross claim,

complaint in intervention, third-party complaint, forth party complaint, etc. in civil cases, a Petition, an Opposition, and a Creditors Claim in Special Proceedings;

2. Complaint/Information for Offenses with maximum imposable penalty of prision correcional in its maximum period of six years imprisonment, except where the civil liability reserved or is subject of a separate action

3. Complaint /Information for estafa, theft, and libel cases, except where the civil liability is reserved or is subject of a separate action;

4. Complaint/Information for Quasi-Offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code;5. Intelectual Property Cases;6. Commercial or Corporate cases;7. Environmental Cases

THE FOLLOWING CASES SHALL NOT BE REFERRED TO MEDIATION: 1. Civil cases which by law cannot be compromised (Article 2035, New Civil

Code); Art. 2035. No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid: (1) The civil status of persons; (2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation; (3) Any ground for legal separation; (4) Future support; (5) The jurisdiction of courts; (6) Future legitime. (1814a)

16


However, in cases covered under 1, 4 and 5 where the parties inform the court that they have agreed to undergo mediation on some aspects thereof, e.g., custody of minor children, separation of property, or support pendente lite, the court shall refer them to mediation.

2. Other criminal cases not covered hereunder shall not be referred to mediation:

a) The civil aspect of Quasi-Offenses under Title 14 of the RPC (Arising from Criminal Negligence);

b) The civil aspect of less grave felonies punishable by correctional penalties not exceeding 6 years imprisonment, where the offended party is a private person;

c) The civil aspect of estafa, theft and libel. d) All civil and criminal cases filed with a certificate to file action issued by

the Punong Barangay or Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo under the Revised Katarungang Pambarangay Law;

e) Habeas Corpus petitions;f) All cases under RA No. 9262 (Violence against Women and Children); andg) Cases with pending application for Restraining Orders/Preliminary

Injunctions.

SHERIFF’S/PROCESS SERVER’S FUND

Under Paragraph 2, Sec. 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended, the Sheriff’s/Process Server’s Fund shall comprise of the amount of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos to 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.

PROCEDURES ON HOW TO WITHDRAW THE SHERIFF’S/PROCESS SERVER’S FUND AND TO LIQUIDATE THE SAME AS CASH ADVANCE:

1. 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;

2. Once approved, the Clerk of Court shall release the money to said Sheriff, Process Server, or Other Court Authorized Person;

3. After service, a Statement of Liquidation shall be submitted to the court for approval.

4. After rendition of judgment by the court, any excess from the deposit shall be returned to the party who made the deposit.

17


Guidelines on how to disburse the cash advance and liquidate the same are prescribed under Paragraph VI, Specific Guidelines on Local Travel, Administrative Circular No. 15-20058, dated March 22, 2005, which provides that:

XXX

“2. The amount of transportation expenses allowable shall be the actual fare at the prevailing rates of the ordinary means of transportation by land, sea and air from the permanent official station to the destination or place of work or assignment in the field and back to the permanent official station. It includes transportation and porterage from the office or residence of the official or employee whichever is economical to the point of embarkation and from the point of debarkation to the office or temporary residence in the place of assignment in the field and from the office or temporary residence in the place of assignment in the field to the point of embarkation and from the point of debarkation to office or residence. It shall exclude local transportation and other expenses upon arrival in the office or temporary residence in the place of assignment in the field which are covered by the travel expense. Taxi fare, if necessary, shall not exceed One Hundred Pesos (P100.00).

3. To ensure that government funds and property are used only for official purposes, no reimbursement of the cost of gasoline and oil shall be allowed if and when a private vehicle is used by the traveling official or employee. In such circumstance, the official or employee shall be entitled only to the reimbursement of the equivalent cost of the customary mode of transportation. Under no circumstances shall fuel be issued to privately-owned motor vehicles.

4. Officials and employees who use government vehicle shall not be entitled to transportation expense.

5. Hiring of private vehicles shall be allowed only if the claim is justified in an affidavit executed by the claimant, and its reasonableness duly certified by the xxx Presiding Judge, the Executive Judge xxx

Xxx

7. Travel Within Fifty-Kilometer Radius

7.1. xxx

c. Process servers and liaison officers who are allowed to use official vehicles by the nature of their job are entitled to meal allowance only. If they do not use official vehicles, they shall be entitled to reimbursement of actual and reasonable transportation expenses, aside from meal allowance. In both instances, they are entitled to said meal allowance only if they are out of their official station for one (1) full day.

xxx

8 Annex U18


d. xxx

Process servers, liaison officers and canvassers or purchasers shall no longer be entitled to a monthly expense allowance.

xxx

f. Personnel who take a taxicab may be entitled to reimbursement of actual taxi fare only after his/her supervisor shall have justified in writing the necessity of the use of such mode of transportation.

7.2. When the official travel or assignment is to places within the fifty (50) kilometer-radius xxx. , or the city or municipality wherein their permanent official station is located in the case of those outside the metropolitan manila area and the amount of travel expenses being claimed includes the hotel room or lodging rate, the following shall be required:

7.2.1 Written justification for staying beyond one (1) full day.

7.2.2 Submission of the hotel room or lodging bills or invoices with official receipts to prove that they stayed in the place of destination or assignment and are not commuting daily from the place of assignment to the place of their residence or permanent official station.”

If the travel is beyond fifty-kilometer radius, Administrative Circular No. 51-20109, July 7, 2010 shall apply, which provides that:

" 1. The local travel expenses of officials and employees, regardless of rank and destination, shall be in the amount of One Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P1,500.00) per day, divided into three (3) components:

Particulars Percentage AmountHotel and Lodging 50% P 750.00 Cost of meal at P150.00 per meal 30% 450.00 Incidental Expenses 20% 300.00

TOTAL 100% P1,500.00

2. Full travel expense shall be allowed only in case of absence from the permanent official station for one (1) full day or more.

Particulars Cost of Meal Incidental Expenses

Hotel or Lodging

Total

Departure from permanent station before 12:00 nn

P450.00 P300.00 P750.00 P1,500.00

Departure from permanent station after 12:00 nn.

150.00 300.00 750.00 1,200.00

Arrival at permanent station before 12:00 nn

150.00 300.00 -o- 450.00

Arrival at permanent station after 12:00 nn

300.00 300.00 -o- 600.00

3. The aforementioned travel allowance shall no longer require submission of official receipts during liquidation;

xxx

9 Annex V19


IV. MONTHLY REPORTS OF COLLECTIONS, DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS

CIRCULAR NO. 113-200410, dated September 16, 2004, revoking Circular No. 44-2000, the OCA established the following guidelines and procedures for purposes of uniformity in the submission of Monthly Reports of Collections and Deposits, to wit:1. The Monthly Reports of Collections and Deposits for the Judiciary Development

Fund (JDF), Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF) and Fiduciary Fund (FF) shall be:

1.1. Certified correct by the Clerk of Court

1.2. Duly subscribed and sworn to before the Executive/Presiding Judge

1.3. Sent not later than the 10th day of each succeeding month to –

The Chief AccountantAccounting DivisionFinancial Management OfficeOffice of the Court AdministratorSupreme Court of the PhilippinesTaft Avenue, ErmitaManila

2. The following documents shall be attached to the reports:

A. For Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)

a. Duplicate copies of the official receipts issued

b. Machine validated deposit slips, if collections are remitted/deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), or Postal Money Order (PMO), if collections are remitted through PMO

B. For Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF)


b. Machine validated deposit slips, if collections are remitted/deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), or Postal Money Order (PMO), if collections are remitted through PMO

C. For Fiduciary Fund (FF)


b. Machine validated deposit slips, if collections are deposited with the LBP, or certified true copies of the official receipts issued by the Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer, if collections are deposited with the Treasurer’s Office

c. In case of withdrawal:

c.1. Copy of the Court Order

c.2. Original Official Receipt (OR) or certified true copy of OR

c.3. Duplicate or certified true copy of withdrawal slip and disbursement voucher if collections are deposited in a savings account with the LBP, or a copy of the check and disbursement voucher if collections

10 Annex AA20


are deposited in a current account with the LBP, or disbursement voucher, if colletions are deposited with the PTO/CTO/MTO

c.4. Copy of the acknowledgement receipt

3. In case of no transaction is made within the month, written notice thereof shall be submitted to the aforesaid Office not later than the 10th day of succeeding month.

REMINDERS: Individual Monthly Financial Reports should be submitted even though

deposits for STF is incorporated with the FF. Failure to submit will tantamount to withholding of Salaries by the

Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator. Land Bank of the Philippines is our depositary bank pursuant to

Administrative Circular No. 5-93 dated April 30, 1993, which amended Administrative Circular No. 5 dated February 21, 1985.

The proper way to handle court funds is to segregate the duties of OR issuance, preparation of monthly reports and maintaining of cashbooks.

The Unwithdrawn Fiduciary Fund and the Unwithdrawn Sheriff’s Trust Fund must be equal to your Cash Items, i.e. Cash in Bank, Other Cash Items like Checks.

Observe the guidelines in Proper Handling and Use of Official Receipts pursuant to OCA Circular No. 22-94 dated April 8, 1994.

.PROPER HANDLING AND USE OF OFFICIAL RECEIPTS:

CIRCULAR NO. 22-9411, April 8, 1994, GUIDELINES IN THE PROPER HANDLING AND USE OF OFFICIAL RECEIPTS, to achieve uniformity and consistency in the observance of audit procedures and for proper accounting and control of collections, the Office of the Court Administrator prescribes the following guidelines:

1) The Official Receipts issued by the Supreme Court to all lower courts shall be used only for collections that will accrue to the National Government;

2) In issuing official receipts, one must consume one (1) booklet at a time and must use a separate booklet for each fund account, that is, separate booklet for JDF, FF,STF, GF, etc.;

3) Official Receipts shall be issued in strict numerical sequence;4) In filling-up receipts, the original copy will have to be written in hard

indelible pencil or ballpen and the duplicate and triplicate copies will be carbon reproductions in all respects of whatever may have been written on the original. However, carbon paper must not be over-used to the extent that what is written on the duplicate, much more on the triplicate, cannot be read;

5) Preparation of official receipts may be entrusted to subordinates but the official receipts issued must be signed by the Clerks of Court/Accountable Officers;

6) In cases wherein cancellation of official receipts becomes inevitable, the Clerk of Court of the duly authorized representative must present to the Provincial/City/Municipal Auditor the spoiled and cancelled receipt/s for

11 Annex AB21


inspection. Under no circumstances shall destruction of accountable forms be allowed;

7) In cases of loss of official receipts, the Clerk of Court or the duly authorized representative must immediately report the incident to the Provincial/City/Municipal Auditor and then file an application for relief,if the circumstances warrants;

8) Official Receipts issued must be properly recorded in their respective book of accounts for accounting and control purposes;

9) Official Receipts must be kept in safe custody. The COC, as a person directly responsible for all court collection, must take all reasonable steps to minimize the risk of losses, defalcations and other types of irregularities.

V. RULE 141 OF THE RULES OF COURT, as amended (Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-200412)

A. Brief History

PARTICULARS DATE OF EFFECTIVITY REMARKSAdministrative Circular

No. 31-90November 2, 1990 a) The applicable funds are JDF & GF;

b) Up to Section 19;c) No Provisions for MF, VCF & Estafa

Cases yet.Administrative Circular

No. 11-94June 28, 1994 Amendments to Sec. 7 (a) and (d)

and Sec 8 (a) and (b); rates increased.Administrative Circular

No. 15-95August 1, 1995 Guidelines for Allocating the Legal

Fees prescribed in Administrative Circular No. 11-94.

Administrative Circular No. 3-2000

(A.M. No. 99-8-01-SC & A.M. No. 00-2-01-SC)

March 1, 2000 a) The applicable funds are JDF & GF;b) Section for Victim’s Compensation

Fund was included; andc) Additional Section for “Other Fees”,

such as estafa, motions, etc., was also included.

Administrative Circular No. 35-2004

(A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC)

August 20, 2004

(Aug. 16, 2004)

a) Funds applicable are JDF& SAFF (GF was changed to SAJF);

b) Filing Fees were increased.c) Provisions for Mediation Fund was

added (Section 9).

12 Annex I22


B. Overview

SECTION PARTICULARS

APPELLATE COURTS

(SC, CA, SB & CTA)

1ST LEVEL COURTS

(RTC)

2ND LEVEL COURTS

(MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC)

1 – 3 General Provisions √ √ √4 Graduated Rates √5 Fees paid by Advancing Party √6 Fees of Bar Candidates √7 Graduated Rates √8 Graduated Rates √

9 – 20 General Provisions √ √ √21 Others Fees √ √22 Government Exempt √ √ √

C. SUSPENDED PROVISIONS:

Court En Banc Resolution Dated September 21, 2004 13 , which suspend the new rates of the legal fees under Rule 141, effective immediately, viz:

a) Solemnization of Marriage – suspends Sec. 7(h) & Sec. 8(g) of the Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004; Php300.00 should be collected pursuant to Sec. 7(h) & Sec. 8(e) Administrative Circular No. 3-2000;

b) Motions – suspends Sec. 21(b) of Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004; only Sec. 20(b) of the Administrative Circular No. 3-2000 shall be in effect, Php100 for the first postponement, PLUS P50.00 for every postponement thereafter (P100.00, P150.00, P200.00, so on & so forth; to be remitted to JDF only, per OCA Circ. No. 130-2006);

c) Compulsory Counterclaims – suspends Sec. 7(a) of Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 for fees on compulsory counterclaim; hence, no fees shall be collected for compulsory counterclaim.

NO DOCKET FEE FOR COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM.

It has reached the attention of the OCA that some courts are collecting docket fees for compulsory counterclaims based apparently on a portion of the decision in Korea Technologies Co. Ltd vs. Alberto A. Lerma, etc., et al., G.R. No. 143581, came up on January 7, 2008, which stated that:

“On July 17, 1998, at the time PGSM filed its answer incorporating its counterclaims against KOGIES, it was not liable to pay filing fee for said counterclaims being compulsory in nature. We stress, however, that effective August 16, 2004 under Sec. 7 Rule 141, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, docket fees are now required to be paid in compulsory counterclaims or cross-claims.”

13 Annex J23


OCA CIRCULAR NO. 96-200914, dated August 13, 2009, clarifies that the second sentence of the quoted portion of the decision more specifically that in bold font, has been deleted in a revised issuance. The OCA cited the Resolution of this Court in A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC dated September 21, 2004 suspending payment of filing fees for compulsory counterclaims remains in effect.

D. MANNER OF PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES:

D.1. ASIDE FROM CASH, DOCKET FILING FEES CAN ALSO BE PAID IN CASHIER’S CHECK OR MANAGER’S CHECK; WHILE GOCCs CAN USE THEIR COMPANY CHECK, AS THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM SAID REQUIREMENT.

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 19-200715, dated February 21, 2007, pursuant to the guidelines issued by the Court in Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 dated August 14, 2004, that docket/filing fees in conformity with Rule 141 of the Rules of Court must be paid in the form of:

(a) Cash(b) Cashier’s Check(c) Manager’s Check

That the government offices and other government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCCs) are exempt from said requirement and they can pay thru company check provided however that the check must be signed by the duly authorized signatories of the concerned agencies.

D.2 DOCKET FILING FEES CAN BE PAID BY PERSONAL, COMPANY OR MANAGER’S CHECK IN PILOT COURTS.

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 88-200716, dated September 14, 2007, these guidelines were implemented to amend Sec. 1 of the Rule 141 of the Rules of Court for those pilot courts:

(1) Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals(2) 1st & 2nd Level Courts in the National Capital Regions(3) Cebu City(4) Mandaue City; and(5) Lapu-Lapu City

Modes of Payment:(a) Cash Payment:

(1) Fee accruing to LRF, VCF, MF, & LRA.(2) Php1,000.00 for STF(3) Fees accruing to JDF or SAJF exceeding Php5,000.00

(b) Check Payment – fees accruing to JDF & SAJF exceeding Php5,000.00Check payments may be in the form of personal, company or manager’s check, provided that, if the amount exceeds Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00), it shall be paid in manager’s check.

14 Annex K15 Annex M16 Annex N

24


RULE IF PAYMENT IS MADE IN CHECK:

(b.1) in conformity with OCA CIRCULAR NO. 19-2007, i.e. the check is dated, with complete signatures and amount in words should tally with the amount in figures;

(b.2) it must be crossed;

(b.3) payable to the “SUPREME COURT, JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND ACCOUNT” or to the “SUPREME COURT, SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR THE JUDICIARY FUND ACCOUNT”; and

(b.4) official receipts issued for payment by check shall be stamped “PAYMENT CREDITED ONLY UPON CHECK BEING CLEARED”;

(b.5) when check is dishonored, the assigned court shall forthwith issue an order dismissing the case within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of notice from the COC who was notified by the FMBO, SC about the notice of dishonour which they receive from the bank;

(b.6) the COC shall accomplish a Monthly Report of Dismissed Cases due to Dishonoured Checks using Form LF-1 to be submitted to the Accounting Division, Financial Management Office, OCA within ten (10) days after the end of each month.

E. SECTION 7, RULE 141, RULES OF COURT:

SEC. RATESORDINARY CIVIL

ACTIONSSPECIAL CIVIL

ACTIONSSPECIAL

PROCEEDINGSNOT AN

ACTIONNOTES

7(a)Graduated

RatesDamage Suit, Sum of

Money, etc

7(b) P2,000.00

All Other Actions not Involving Property

- Relief from Judgement

- Annulment/ Recission of Contract

- Revival of Judgment, etc.

InterpleaderDeclaratory ReliefCertiorari,

Prohibition and Mandamus

Quo WarrantoBeyond pecuniary

estimation

7(c )Graduated

RatesExtra-Judicial

Foreclosure

7(d)Graduated

Rates

Allowance of Wills

Granting Letters of Administration

Appointment of Guardians/Trustees, etc.

7(e) P10,000.00NaturalizationAcquiring

Citizenship7(f) Various

ratesAdoption

(P2,000/P10,000)

Support (P500)Annulment of

Marriage/ Declaration of Nullity/ Legal Separation

If the proceedings involve separation of property, an additional fee

25


(P3,000)Custody of

Minors (P1,000)

corresponding to the value of the of the property, an additional fee corresponding to the value of the property involved shall be collected, in accordance with Sec 7(d).

7(g) P500.00

Writ of Habeas Corpus

Rescission/ Revocation of Adoption

Termination of Guardianship

Change of NameCancellation/

Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry

7(h) P300.00

Solemnization New rates were suspended, OCA Cir. No. 96-2009, including Motions & Compulsory counterclaims

7(i) P2,000.00Commission

fee Notary

Public

7(j) P10/page

Certifying copies of any paper, record, decree, judgment

7(k)

2% x P4,0001.5% x >P4K

Court’s Commission

Commission on all money, excluding cashbond coming into the clerk’s hands by law, rule, order or writ of court

7(l) P3,000.00 Appeals

7(m) P500.00

Issuance of Provisional Remedies

Whether asked thru motion or included in the pleading

7(n) P50.00Clearance/

Certification

26


7(o) P200.00Notary

ChargeServices

of Notary Public

7(p) P200.00

Other services

Any other services not provided in this section

F. SECTION 8, RULE 141, RULES OF COURT:

27


G. SEC. 11. Stenographers.–

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 158-2011, was issued in relation to A.M. No. P-09-266 (Anonymous Complaint vs. Gertrudes F. Felitro, et. Al., all stenographers, RTC, Las Piñas City) to remind all courts on the strict compliance with this provision:

“Stenographers shall give certified transcript of notes taken by them to every person requesting the same upon payment to the Clerk of Court of (a) TEN (P10.00) PESOS for each page of not less than two hundred and fifty words before the appeal is taken and (b) FIVE (P5.00) PESOS for the same page, after the filing of the appeal, provided, however, that one-third (1/3) of the total charges shall accrue to the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and the remaining two-thirds (2/3) to the stenographer concerned. (10a)”

H. SEC. 12. Notaries.– No notary public shall charge or receive for any service rendered by him any fee, remuneration or compensation in excess of those expressly prescribed in the following schedule:

(a) For protests of drafts, bills of exchange, or promissory notes for non-acceptance or non-payment, and for notice thereof, ONE HUNDRED (P100.00) PESOS;

(b) For the registration of such protest and filing or safekeeping of the same, ONE HUNDRED (P100.00) PESOS;

(c) For authenticating powers of attorney, ONE HUNDRED (P100.00) PESOS; (d) For sworn statement concerning correctness of any account or other document,

ONE HUNDRED (P100.00) PESOS; (e) For each oath of affirmation, ONE HUNDRED (P100.00) PESOS; (f) For receiving evidence of indebtedness to be sent outside, ONE HUNDRED

(P100.00) PESOS; (g) For issuing a certified copy of all or part of his notarial register or notarial records,

for each page, ONE HUNDRED (P100.00) PESOS; (h) For taking depositions, for each page, ONE HUNDRED (P100.00) PESOS; and (i) For acknowledging other documents not enumerated in this section, ONE

HUNDRED (P100.00) PESOS. (11a)

I. Sec. 21. Other Fees

Sec. 21 (a) - In estafa cases where the offended party fails to manifest within fifteen (15) days following the filing of the information that the civil liability arising from the crime has been or would be separately prosecuted, OR IN VIOLATIONS OF BP NO. 22 xxx

RULES AND GUIDELINES IN THE FILING, COLLECTION OF FEES AND PROSECUTION OF BP Blg. 22

28


Per OCA Circular No. 57-97, as amended by OCA Circular No. 70-97 and 141-2003:

GENERAL RULES AND GUIDELINES IN THE FILING AND PROSECUTION OF BP 22:

a) The criminal action for violation of BP 22 shall be deemed to necessarily include the corresponding civil action, and reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed or recognized. (Par. 1, OCA Circ. No. 57-97)

b) Upon the filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based upon the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed.

c) Where the offended party further seeks to enforce against the accused civil liability by way of liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, he shall pay the corresponding filing fees therefore based on the amounts thereof as alleged either in his complaint or in the information. (Actual Damages not included, i.e. the amount of the check)

d) If not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the amount of such fees shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.

e) Where the civil action has heretofore been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the court trying the latter case.

f) If the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance with the pertinent procedure outlined in Section 2(a) of Rule 111 governing the proceedings in the actions as thus consolidated. (Par. 1-3, OCA Circ. No. 57-97)

PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES IN THE COLLECTION OF THE FILING FEES:

a) The OCC shall receive the information filed by the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor or the Provincial/City Prosecution Office;

b) Upon receipt, the information shall be entered in a separate record book and assigned an undocketed number (UDK No.) consisting of (a) the Investigation Slip No. (I.S. No.) appearing on the said information for easy identification; and (b) a number, starting with No. 1 (Example: UDK No. 6789-1);

c) Thereafter, the Clerk of Court shall, the Clerk of Court shall, by form letter17 (form provided), notify and advise the complainant of (a) the filing of the information; and (b) the requirement as to the payment in full of the filing fees under Circular 57-97 (previously referring to Section 8(a) and Section 7(a), now Section 21(a)) based upon the computation stated therein;

d) The State Prosecutor, the Provincial/Assistant Provincial Prosecutor or the City/Assistant City Prosecutor who filed the information and the respondent shall be furnished with copies of the accomplished form letter sent by the COC. (Par. 1-2, OCA Circ. No. 70-97)

e) The complainant shall have a period of ten (10) days from receipt of the letter within which to pay the filing fees.

f) Should the complainant fail to pay the filing fees within the ten (10)-day period stated herein, the case folder shall be archived.

17 Annex AC29


g) After the lapse of two (2) months, [deleted provision: “the records may be disposed of.”] the case folder shall be forwarded to the Executive Judge (multiple sala stations) or Presiding Judge (single sala stations) who shall dismiss the case on the ground of non-payment of filing fees pursuant to Circular No. 57-97 dated 16 September 1997;

h) Thereafter, the COC shall return the case folder to the Office of the Prosecutor. (OCA Circ. No. 141-2003, September 30, 2003)

i) However, upon receipt of the filing fees, the information shall be entered in the court’s general docket book and assigned the court case number;

j) Thereafter, the COC shall cause the inclusion of the case in the raffle of cases.

k) FOR BP 22 CASES FILED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVITY DATE OF A.M. No. 35-2004 (August 16, 2004), in the event that the amount of the actual damages claimed exceeds the maximum amount of P200,000.00, the filing fees to be collected in excess of the aforementioned amount shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(a), of the administrative circular in effect. (Par. 4-5, OCA Circ. No. 70-97)

J. Sec. 21(c). Bond Fee

For all types of bonds (cash, surety and property) in criminal and civil cases, FIVE HUNDRED (P500.00) PESOS per each bond;

JDF = P300.00SAJF = P200.00

K. Sec 21(e). FOR RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE BY THE CLERK OF COURT, FIVE HUNDRED (P500.00) PESOS

OCA CIRCULAR No 50-2001, dated 17 August 2001, prohibits collection of compensation for services rendered as commissioners in ex-parte proceedings.

L. Sec. 21(h). Names of Voters Inclusion/Exclusion Fee:

For petitions for inclusion, exclusion or correction of names of voters, one hundred (p100.00) pesos;

FILING FEE=PER VOTER X P100.00

VI. EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES

(1) Indigent litigants (a) whose gross income and that their immediate family do not exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee, and (b) who do not own real property with fair market value as stated in the current tax declaration of more than Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos shall be exempt from the payment of legal fees. (Sec. 19, A.M. No. 35-2004).

(2) Republic of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities. (Sec. 22, A.M. No. 35-2004).

30


(3) The Provincial, City or Municipal Treasurer or assessor, provided however, that all court actions, criminal or civil, are instituted at their instance. (Sec. 280 of the Local Government Code of 1991).

(4) Tenant-Farmer, agricultural lessee or tiller, settler or amortizing owner-cultivator. (PD No. 946, Sec. 16).

(5) Indigent Clients of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). (OCA Circular No. 121-200718, Dec. 11, 2007, revoking the conditions imposed in OCA Circular No. 67-2007).

(6) Clients of the National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) and of Legal Aide Offices in the Local Chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). (OCA Circular No. 137-200919).

(7) Dangerous Drug Board relative to Petitions for Voluntary Confinement under Article VIII , Section 54 of Republic Act 9165. (Resolution of the Court En Banc dated March 2, 2010, A.M. No. 10-2-03-020).

Further , OCA Circular No. 95-200721 reminded and directed all Judges and Clerks of Court of the RTC to strictly comply with Paragraph 3 of Section 87, Article X of the Republic Act No. 9165, which quoted hereunder as follows:

“Sec. 87. Appropriations. – xxx

The fines shall be remitted to the Board by the court imposing such fines within thirty (30) days from the finality of its decisions or orders.xxx”

(8) Person/s filing a Petition for Writ of Amparo. (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC).

COOPERATIVES ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM THE PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES PROVIDED FOR UNDER RULE 141 OF THE RULES OF COURT.

OCA Circular No. 42-2012 dated May 7, 2012, mandated the implementation of the decision of the Court in A.M. No. 12-2-03-0, RE: IN THE MATTER OF CLARIFICATION OF EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF ALL COURT AND SHERIFF’S FEES OF COOPERATIVES DULY REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9520 OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE PHILIPPINE COOPERATIVE CODE OF 2008, PERPETUAL HELP COMMUNITY COOPERATIVE (PHCCI), dated 13 March 2012, penned by Associate Justice Jose P. Perez, where the Court ruled that:

xxx

“In a decision dated 26 February 2010 in Baguio Market Vendors Multi-Purpose Cooperative (BAMARVEMPCO) v. Cabato-Cortes, this Court reiterated its ruling in the GSIS case when it denied the petition of the cooperative to be exempted from the payment of legal fees under Section 7(c) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court relative to fees in petitions for extra-judicial foreclosure.

On 10 March 2010, relying again on the GSIS ruling, the Court En Banc issued a resolution clarifying that the National Power Corporation is not exempt from the payment of legal fees.

18 Annex O19 Annex Q20 Annex R21 Annex S

31


With the foregoing categorical pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it is evident that the exemption of cooperatives from payment of court and sheriff’s fees no longer stands. Cooperatives can no longer invoke Republic Act No. 6938, as amended by Republic Act No. 9520, as basis for exemption from the payment of legal fees.

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, the petition of PHCCI requesting for this Court to issue an order clarifying and implementing the exemption of cooperatives from the payment of court and sheriff’s fees is hereby DENIED.

The Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to issue a circular clarifying that cooperatives are not exempt from the payment of the legal fees provided for under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.“

VII. Php1,000.00 REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 and 3 OF SEC. 10 OF THE AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 35-2004 MUST BE COLLECTED.

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 135-200922, dated October 1, 2009, in a resolution of the Supreme Court En Banc dated September 1, 2009 in A.M. No. 03-4-01-0, the Court qualify the distinction between the terms sheriff’s expenses (as found in second paragraph of Section 10); that the amount required to defray the sheriff’s expenses is clearly not covered by the exemption; they are neither considered as court and sheriff’s fees nor amounts payable to the Philippine Government. For strict compliance of all concerned, the dispositive portion of the resolution is hereunder stated:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, we rule that the REMPCO Multi-Purpose Cooperative is NOT EXEMPT from the deposit/payment of sheriff’s expenses under Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court in collection actions filed with the Small Claims Court of Makati City.”

VIII. ASSESSMENT AND COMPUTATION OF DOCKET FEES

A. OCA CIRCULAR 26-9723, dated May 5, 1997, mandates to:

1. compel the collecting officials to strictly comply with the provisions of the Auditing and Accounting Manual, Art. VI, Sec. 61 and 113; and

2. cause the attachment of Legal Fees Form to the record of the case in lieu of official receipts (see attached form).

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESRTC/SDC/METC/MTCC/MTC/MCTC/SCC

L E G A L F E E S F O R M

CASE NO. _____________

22 Annex T23 Annex H

32


RECEIVED this ________ day of _____________, 19___ the following payments:

1. General Funda. Clerk of Court

General Fundb. Sheriff’s General

Fund

P________________

P________________

O.R. No.____________

O.R. No.____________2. Judiciary Development

Fund P________________ O.R. No.____________3. Fiduciary Fund P________________ O.R. No.____________4. Sheriff’s Trust Fund P________________ O.R. No.____________5. Legal Research Fund

Fee P________________ O.R. No.____________6. Land Registration Fee P________________ O.R. No.____________7. Victims Compensation

Fee P________________ O.R. No.____________

Total: ______________________

Paid By:______________________

Received By:___________________

(Note:______________________________________________)

B. COMPUTATION:

Problem No. 1

X filed a complaint for Sum of Money against Y. Given the information below, compute the fees and other charges X need to pay:

Particulars 1 st Level Courts 2 nd Level Courts Total claims, plus damages P 190,000.00 P 500,000.00Summon to serve 1 1

ANSWER TO PROBLEM No. 1:

1.a. For 1 st Level Courts:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESMunicipal Trial Court - ____________________


CASE NO. 11-00001

RECEIVED this ___5 th day of ___July____, 2011 the following payments:

33


1. SAJF P 1,751.40 O.R. No. 00001012. JDF 949.60 O.R. No. 00002013. GF - O.R. No. _______4. FF - O.R. No. _______5. STF 1,000.00 O.R. No. 00003016. MF 500.00 O.R. No. 00004017. LRF 27.00 * O.R. No. 11111118. VCF 5.00 O.R. No. 2222221Total Docket Fees: P 4,232.00

Paid By:__________________

Received By:___________________

(Note:______________________________________________)

Particulars TOTAL Fees For SAJF For JDFTotal claims, plus damages – Sec. 8(a) P 2,500.00 P 1,607.00 P 893.00Summon to serve – Sec. 10(a) 200.00 144.00 56.00Total Filing fee P 2,700.00 P 1,751.00 P 949.00

*LRF COMPUTATION:Particulars Amount

Total Filing Fee P 2,700.00MULTIPLY: LRF rate (1%) 0.01LRF fee P 27.00

1.b. For 2 nd Level Courts:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESRegional Trial Court - _____________________


CASE NO. 11-00001


1. SAJF P 3,994.00 O.R. No. 00001012. JDF 2,706.00 O.R. No. 00002013. GF - O.R. No. _______4. FF - O.R. No. _______5. STF 1,000.00 O.R. No. 00003016. MF 500.00 O.R. No. 00004017. LRF 67.00 * O.R. No. 11111118. VCF 5.00 O.R. No. 2222221Total Docket Fees: P 8,272.00

Paid By: Received By:

34


__________________ ___________________

(Note:______________________________________________)

Particulars TOTAL Fees For SAJF For JDFTotal claims, + damages – Sec. 7(a)** P 6,500.00 P 3,850.00 P 2,650.00Summon to serve – Sec. 10(a) 200.00 144.00 56.00Total Filing Fee P 6,700.00 P 3,994.00 P 2,706.00

**Total claims, damages – Sec. 7(a) TOTAL Fees For SAJF For JDFNot more than P400,000.00 P 4,500.00 P2,650.00 P1,850.00For each P1,000.00 in excess of P400,000.00 ((100k/1k)x20)=P2,000.00; [ratio: 12:20, for SAJ & 8:20 for JDF] 2,000.00 1,200.00 800.00Total P 6,500.00 P 3,850.00 P 2,650.00


Total Filing Fee P 6,700.00MULTIPLY: LRF rate (1%) 0.01LRF Fee P 67.00

PROBLEM NO. 2Compute the total fees & other charges due from NPC, if any using

the information below:

FOR 1 st Level Courts FOR 2 nd Level Courts

The National Power Corporation filed a Forcible Entry Case against Sps. Dela Cruz with damages. The damages prayed for totalled to P550,000.00.

The National Power Corporation filed a collection suit against Meralco in the RTC. The prayer of the complaint shows a total claims of P4,000,000.00.

ANSWER TO PROBLEM No. 2:

2.a. For 1 st Level Courts:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESMunicipal Trial Court - ____________________


CASE NO. 11-00001


35


1. SAJF P 5,261.00 O.R. No. 00001022. JDF 2,939.00 O.R. No. 00002023. GF - O.R. No. _______4. FF - O.R. No. _______5. STF 1,000.00 O.R. No. 00003026. MF 500.00 O.R. No. 00004027. LRF 82.00 * O.R. No. 11111128. VCF 5.00 O.R. No. 2222222Total Docket Fees: P 9,787.00

Paid By:__________________

Received By:___________________

Particulars TOTAL Fees For SAJF For JDFFee under Sec. 8(c) P 500.00 P 360.00 P 140.00Summon – Sec. 10(a) 200.00 144.00 56.00Damages Prayed – Sec. 8(a)** 7,500.00 4,757.00 2,743.00Total Filing Fee P 8,200.00 P 5,261.00 P 2,939.00

**Damages Prayed – Sec. 8(a) TOTAL Fees For SAJF For JDFNot more than P400,000.00 (Sec 8(a) #5) P 5,000.00 P 3,150.00 P 1,850.00Jump back to Sec. 8(a) #3 2,500.00 1,607.00 893.00Total P 7,500.00 P 4,757.00 P 2,743.00



2.b. For 2 nd Level Courts:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESRegional Trial Court - _____________________


CASE NO. 11-00001


1. SAJF P 45,994.00 O.R. No. 00001012. JDF 30,706.00 O.R. No. 00002013. GF - O.R. No. _______4. FF - O.R. No. _______5. STF 1,000.00 O.R. No. 00003016. MF 500.00 O.R. No. 00004017. LRF 767.00 * O.R. No. 11111118. VCF 5.00 O.R. No. 2222221

36


Total Docket Fees: P 78,972.00

Paid By:__________________

Received By:___________________

(Note:______________________________________________)

Particulars TOTAL Fees For SAJF For JDFFees under Sec. 7(a)** P 76,500.00 P 45,850.00 P 30,650.00Summon to serve – Sec. 10(a) 200.00 144.00 56.00Total Filing Fee P 76,700.00 P 45,994.00 P 30,706.00

**Fees under Sec. 7(a): TOTAL Fees For SAJF For JDFNot more than P400,000.00 P 4,500.00 P2,650.00 P1,850.00P20.00 for each P1,000.00 in excess of P400,000.00 ((3,600k/1k)x20)=P72,000.00; [ratio: 12:20, for SAJ & 8:20 for JDF]

72,000.00 43,200.00 28,800.00

Total P 76,500.00 P 45,850.00 P 30,650.00



IX. RULES OF PROCEDURE ON CORPORATE REHABILITATION

The Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (2008), A.M. No. 00-8-10-SC24, dated December 2, 2008, taken effect on January 16, 2009, approved, per recommendation of the Sub-Committee on Special Rules for Special Commercial Courts, requires that petition for rehabilitation shall be accompanied by the following documents:

(1) An audited financial statement of the debtor at the end of its last fiscal year;

(2) Interim financial statements as of the end of the month prior to the filing of the petition;

(3) A Schedule of Debts and Liabilities which lists all the creditors of the debtor, indicating the name and last address of record of each creditor; the amount of each claim as to principal, interest, or penalties due as of the date of filing; the nature of the claim; and any pledge, lien, mortgage judgment or other security given for the payment thereof;

(4) An Inventory of Assets which must list with reasonable specificity all the assets of the debtor, stating the nature of each asset, the location and

24 Annex W37


condition thereof, the book value or market value of the asset, and attaching the corresponding certificate of title thereof in case of real property, or the evidence of title or ownership in case of movable property, the encumbrances, liens or claims thereon, if any, and the identities and addresses of the lien holders and claimants. The Inventory shall include a Schedule of Accounts Receivable which must indicate the amount of each, the persons from who due, the date of maturity and the degree of collectibility categorizing them as highly collectible to remotely collectible;

(5) A rehabilitation plan which conforms with the minimal requirements set out in Section 18 of Rule 3;

(6) A Schedule of Payments and Disposition of Assets which the debtor may have effected within three (3) months immediately preceding the filing of the petition;

(7) A Schedule of Cash Flow of the debtor for three (3) months immediately preceding the filing of the petition, and a detailed schedule of the projected cash flow for the succeeding three (3) months;

(8) A Statement of Possible Claims by or against the debtor which must contain a brief statement of the facts which might give rise to the claim and an estimate of the probable amount thereof;

(9) An Affidavit of General Financial Condition which shall contain answers to the questions or matters prescribed in Annex "A" hereof;

(10) At least three (3) nominees for the position of rehabilitation receiver as well as their qualifications and addresses, including but not limited to their telephone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail address; and

(11) A certificate attesting under oath that (i) the filing of the petition has been duly authorized; and (ii) the directors and stockholders of the debtor have irrevocably approved and/or consented to, in accordance with existing laws, all actions or matters necessary and desirable to rehabilitate the debtor including, but not limited to, amendments to the articles of incorporation and by-laws or articles of partnership; increase or decrease in the authorized capital stock; issuance of bonded indebtedness; alienation, transfer, or encumbrance of assets of the debtor; and modification of shareholders' rights.

DOCKET FEES FOR PETITION ON CORPORATE REHABILITATION CAN BE PAID ON STAGGERED BASIS.

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 138-200625, dated September 27, 2006, clarifies amendment of Sec. 21(i), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court (A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC, August 16, 2004). The Court En Banc acting on the Resolution dated September 5, 2006 on the Committee on the Revision of Rules of Court, inserted this provision:

xxx2. MANNER OF PAYMENT. –

2.1. FEES AMOUNTING TO Php100,000.00 OR LESS SHALL BE PAID UPON THE FILING OF THE PETITION.

2.2. FEES INEXCESS OF Php100,000.00 MAY BE PAID ON STAGGERED BASIS AS FOLLOWS:

25 Annex L38


2.2.1. P100,000.00 SHALL BE PAID UPON FILING OF PETITION.

2.2.2. THE BALANCE SHALL BE PAID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING SCHEDULE:

2.2.2.1. 25% SHALL BE PAID UPON THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER GIVING DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION.

2.2.2.2. 25% SHALL BE PAID UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE REHABILITATION PLAN; AND

2.2.2.3. THE BALANCE OF 50% SHALL BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PREFERRED PAYABLES TO BE SETTELED IN THE REHABILITATION PLAN.

The value of the assets shall be based on the fair market value of the real property of the petitioner stated in the tax declaration or zonal value thereof fixed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, whichever is higher, or, if there is none, the stated value of the assets in the petition. In case of personal property, the value shall be stated by the petitioner in the petition.

If during trial, the Court finds that the value of the assets is more or the monetary claims are higher than the amounts stated in the complaints or petition, then it shall order the payment of additional fees based thereon.

X. EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE

CIRCULAR NO. 7-200226, dated January 22, 2002, issued pursuant to the Supreme Court En Banc Resolution of December 14, 1999 in Administrative Matter No. 99-10-05-0, as amended by the resolutions of January 30, 2001 and August 7, 2001, directing the Office of the Court Administrator to prepare the guidelines for the enforcement of A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 on the extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgages.

PROCEDURES:

(1) Upon filing the application for extra-judicial foreclosure, the Clerk of Court shall examine the same to ensure that the special power of attorney authorizing the extra-judicial foreclosure of the real property is either inserted into or attached to the deed of real estate mortgage (Act No. 3135, Sec. 1, as amended); (Sec. 1 & 2(a) of Circular No. 7-2002)

(2) The COC shall give a file number to the application and endorse the date and time of its filing and thereafter docket the same, keeping, in this connection, separate docket books for extra-judicial foreclosure sales conducted by the Sheriff and those conducted by notaries public; (Sec. 2 (b) of Circular No. 7-2002)

26 Annex X39


(3) The COC shall collect the appropriate filing fees and issues the corresponding official receipt pursuant to Sections 7 (c) & 10 (h) of A.M. No. 35-2004; (amended provisions)

Cooperatives, thrift banks, and rural banks are not exempt from the payment of filing fees and other fees under these guidelines (A.M. No. 98-9-280-RTC, September 29, 1998; A.M. No. 99-3-93-RTC, April 20, 1999 and A.M. No. 92-9-408-0).

Further, in a resolution written by Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the Supreme Court denied the petition for review filed by the Baguio Market Vendors Multi-Purpose Cooperative (BAMARVEMPCO) (G.R. No. 165922, February 26, 2010). The cooperative sought to set aside an earlier lower court ruling denying BAMARVEMPCO’s bid to be exempted from the payment of all court and sheriff’s fees to be incurred in the mortgage foreclosure. The Supreme Court ruled that credit cooperatives are subject to payment of legal fees when they file for the extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage on the loan secured by properties, for the “Petitions for Extrajudicial Foreclosure Outside of the Ambit of Article 62(6) of RA 6938”.

The recent decision is the case of Baguio Market Vendors Multi-Purpose Cooperative (BAMARVEMPCO) vs. Hon. Iluminada Cabato-Cortes, EJ, RTC, Baguio City, G.R. No. 165922, March 21, 2010, where the Supreme Court ruled that Section 62 (6) of RA 6938 does not apply to BAMARVEMPCO’s mortage foreclosure proceedings. Hence, CREDIT COOPERATIVES NOT EXEMPT FROM FORECLOSURE FEES.

PARTIAL EXEMPTION: In a resolution of the Court En Banc dated July 7, 2009, A.M. No. 09-6-250-RTC (RE: Request of Atty. Anna Rosario Paner for clarification on the Applicability of Sec. 15, of R.A. 9182 as Amended by R.A. 3343), the Court Resolved, upon recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), to GRANT all Special Purpose Vehicles a fifty percent (50%) discount on the filing fees for any foreclosure initiated by the Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV)27 in relation to any non-performing assets (NPA) acquired from any Financial Institutions (FI), as prescribed by the Rules of Court on Filing Fees.

(4) If extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgages of real estates and/ or chattels in different locations covering one indebtedness, the COC shall issue, apart from the official receipt for the fees, a certificate of payment indicating the:

4.1 amount of indebtedness,

4.2 the filing fees collected,

4.3 the mortgages sought to be foreclosed,

27 Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)- An SPV shall be organized as a stock corporation in accordance with Batas Pambansa Blg. 68, otherwise known as “The Corporation Code of the Philipppines” and the rules promulgated by the Commission for purposes of registering the SPV;xxxxx ; Powers of an SPV: (a) to invest in, acquired NPAs of FIs; xxx; (c) to rent, lease, hire, pledge, mortgage, transfer, sell, exchange, usufruct, secure, securitize, collect rents and profits, xxxx

40


4.4 the real estates and/ or chattels mortgaged, and

4.5 their respective locations, for purposes of having the application docketed with the Clerks of Court in the places where the other properties are located and of allowing the extra-judicial foreclosure to proceed thereat. (A.M. No. 99-10-05-0, par. 2 (e); (Sec. 2 of Circular No. 7-2002)

(5) EJF shall be raffled under the supervision of the Executive Judge, with the assistance of the Clerk of Courts and Ex-Oficio Sheriff, among all Sheriffs including those assigned to the Office of the clerk of court and Sheriffs assigned in the branches of the court. A Sheriff to whom the case has been raffled shall be excluded in the succeeding raffles and shall participate again only after all other Sheriffs shall have been assigned a case by raffle (Administrative Circular No. 3-98, Feb. 5, 1998); (Sec. 3 of Circular No. 7-2002)

(6) The Sheriff to whom the application for extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage was raffled shall:

6.1 prepare a Notice of extra-Judicial Sale (form provided); (Sec. 4 of Circular No. 7-2002)

6.2 cause the publication of the notice of sale (see Sec. 4 (b) of Circular No. 7-2002)

For real estate mortgages covering loans not exceeding P100,000.00 exclusive of interests due unpaid, granted by rural banks (RA No. 7353, Sec. 6) or thrift banks28 (RA No. 7906, Sec. 18), publication in a newspaper shall be dispensed with, it being sufficient that the notices of foreclosure are posted for a period of sixty (60) days immediately preceding the public auction in the most conspicuous areas of the municipal building, the municipal public market, the rural bank, the barangay hall, and the barangay public market, if any, where the land mortgaged is situated.

6.3 conduct the extra-judicial foreclosure sale (Sec. 5 of Ciruclar No. 7-2002);

(7) In the conduct the extra-judicial foreclosure sale:

(a) The bidding must be made through sealed bids;

(b) The sale must be between 9 am to 4 pm;

(c) Property mortgaged shall be awarded to the highest bidder;

28 The thrift banking system is composed of savings and mortgage banks, private development banks, stock savings and loan associations and microfinance thrift banks. Thrift banks are engaged in accumulating savings of depositors and investing them. They also provide short-term working capital and medium- and long-term financing to businesses engaged in agriculture, services, industry and housing, and diversified financial and allied services, and to their chosen markets and constituencies, especially small- and medium- enterprises and individuals. (BSP Circular)

41


(d) In case of a tie, an open bidding shall be conducted between the highest bidders. (Sec. 5(a) of Circular No. 7-2002)

(8) The sale must be made in the province in which the real property is situated, otherwise stipulated. In case of chattel mortgage, the sale shall be made at a place where the mortgagor resides or where the property is situated. (Sec. 5(b) of Circular No. 7-2002)

(9) After the sale, the COC shall collect the appropriate fees pursuant to Sec. 10 (l) of Administrative Circular No. 35-2004; (Sec. 6 of Circular No. 7-2002)

Administrative Circular No. 111-200729, November 13, 2007, the Court declares that the En Banc resolution dated July 20, 2004 in A.M. 04-2-04-SC entitled “Revision of the Rule 141, Revised Rules of Court” which became effective August 16, 2004 has repealed the Php100,000.00 cap for the payment of the sheriff’s fees provided in A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 dated January 30, 2001.

(10) In case of foreclosure under Acts No. 1508 (The Chattel Mortgage Law), the sheriff shall within Thirty (30) days from the sale, prepare a return and file the same in the Office of the Registry of Deeds where the mortgage is recorded; (Sec. 7 of Circular No. 7-2002);

(11) The sheriff or the notary public who conducted the same report the name/s of the bidder/s to the COC. (Sec 8 of Circular No. 7-2002).

(12) Upon presentation of appropriate receipts, the COC shall issue and sign the Certificate of Sale (COS), subject to the approval of the Executive Judge, after payment of the Php500.00 as provided in Sec. 21(d) of Administrative Circular No. 35-2004; in extra-judicial foreclosure sale conducted by the notary public, collect the additional appropriate fees pursuant to Sec. 21(e) of Administrative Circular No. 35-2004; (Sec. 9 of Circular No. 7-2002);

(13) After the COS has been issued, the COC shall keep and archive the complete records for the following periods for the right of redemption take place, to wit:

13.1. If the mortgagor is an individual, within one (1) year from the date of registration of the COS with the Register of Deeds (Sec. 10 of Circular No. 7-2002).

12.2. If the mortgagor is a juridical entity, until, but not later than, the registration of the certificate of foreclosure sale which in no case more than three (3) months after foreclosure, whichever is earlier. (Sec. 10 of Circular No. 7-2002).

(14) In case the property is redeemed, the COC shall assess the redemptioner’s fee as provided in Sec. 7(k) of Administrative Circular No. 35-2004; (Sec. 10 of Circular No. 7-2002).

(15) In case the property is not redeemed, the COC shall, as a requisite for the issuance of the final Deed of Sale, assess the highest bidder the amount of Php500.00 as provided in Sec. 21(d) of Administrative Circular No. 35-2004. (Sec. 10 of Circular No. 7-2002).

29 Annex Y42


(16) ADDITIONAL RULES WITH RESPECT TO OCA CIRCULAR NO. 25-200730, take effect on March 10, 2007: The Supreme Court En Banc, acting on the recommendation of the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court, in its Resolution dated February 20, 2007 in A.M. No. 99-10-05-0, resolved to adopt the following additional rules with respect to Extrajudicial or Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgages:

(a) No temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the extra-judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage shall be issued on the allegation that the loan secured by the mortgage has been paid or is not delinquent unless the application is verified and supported by evidence of payment;

(b) No temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage shall be issued on the allegation that the interest on the principal obligation as stated in the application for foreclosure sale, which shall be updated monthly while the case is pending;

(c) Where the writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against a foreclosure of mortgage, the disposition of the case shall be speedily resolved. To this end, the Court concerned shall submit to the Supreme Court, through the OCA, quarterly reports on the progress of the cases involving ten million (10M) pesos and above.

(d) All requirements and restrictions prescribed for the issuance of a temporary restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction, such as the posting of a bond, which shall be equal to the amount of the outstanding debt, and the time limitation for its effectivity, shall apply as well as to a status quo order.

COMPUTATION NO. 3 EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE CASE

Problem:

Baguio Market Vendors Cooperative filed an application for extra-judicial foreclosure of the property of Jewel Pawnshop, Inc. in the RTC Baguio City.

The petition shows unpaid obligations of P90,000.00, excluding P25,000.00 due and unpaid interest.

1) How much is the filing fee, if any?

ANSWER TO No. 1:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESRegional Trial Court - ____________________


FILE NO. 11-0003

RECEIVED this ___9 th day of ___August____, 2011 the following payments:

30 Annex Z43


1. SAJF P 577.00 O.R. No. 00001032. JDF 573.00 O.R. No. 00002033. GF - O.R. No. _______4. FF - O.R. No. _______5. STF - O.R. No. _______6. MF - O.R. No. _______7. LRF - O.R. No. _______8. VCF - O.R. No. _______Total Docket Fees: P 1,150.00

Paid By:__________________

Received By:___________________

(Note:______________________________________________)

Particulars TOTAL Fees For SAJF For JDFFee under Sec. 7 (c) P 1,000.00 P 500.00 P 500.00Posting & Publication Fee – Sec. 10(h) 150.00 73.00 77.00Total docket fees P 1,150.00 P 573.00 P 577.00

In a notice of sale posted by the assigned sheriff, the real property of Jewel Pawnshop, Inc. is scheduled for auction sale. Unpaid obligations of P90,000, plus due and unpaid interest on loan amounting to P35,000.00 appearing on the face of the notice.

On the date of the scheduled auction sale, Mr. Benie Cheng participated and bid the amount of P150,000.00, and he was the highest bidder.

2) How much should Mr. Benie Cheng need to pay to get the Certificate of Sale?

ANSWER TO No. 2:



FILE NO. 11-0005


9. SAJF P 1,720.00 O.R. No. 000010510. JDF 3,380.00 O.R. No. 000020511. GF - O.R. No. _______12. FF - O.R. No. _______13. STF - O.R. No. _______14. MF - O.R. No. _______15. LRF - O.R. No. _______16. VCF - O.R. No. _______

44


Total: P 5,100.00

Paid By:__________________

Received By:___________________

(Note:______________________________________________)

COMPUTATION: TOTAL Fees For SAJF For JDFSheriff’s Commission - Sec. 10 (l)* P 4,600.00 P 3,080.00 P 1,520.00Certificate of Sale Fee – Sec. 21(d) 500.00 300.00 200.00Total P 5,100.00 P 3,380.00 P 1,720.00

* Sheriff’s Commission Computation: TOTAL Fees For SAJF For JDFP4,000 x 5.5% (ratio is 4:5.5 & 1.5:5.5) P 220.00 P 160.00 P 60.00P146,000 x 3% (ratio is 2:3 & 1:3) 4,380.00 2,920.00 1,460.00Total P 4,600.00 P 3,080.00 P 1,520.00

One month after, Mr. Benie Cheng registered the Certificate of Sale to the Register of Deeds and came to your office that day. Mr. Cheng is requesting for the release of the Final Deed of Sale.

3) Are you going to issue a Final Deed of Sale for the auctioned property of Jewel Pawnshop, Inc.?

Yes, because the mortgagor is a juridical entity and the redemption period expires upon registration of the property in the Register of Deeds (i.e. the date of the registration of the Certificate of Sale in the Register Deeds or the three (3) months period, whichever comes first), not a one (1) year redemption period.

4) How much should Mr. Benie Cheng have to pay to get the Final Deed of Sale?

ANSWER TO No.4:



FILE NO. 11-0006


1. SAJF P 200.00 O.R. No. 00001062. JDF 300.00 O.R. No. 00002063. GF - O.R. No. _______4. FF - O.R. No. _______

45


5. STF - O.R. No. _______6. MF - O.R. No. _______7. LRF - O.R. No. _______8. VCF - O.R. No. _______

Total: P 500.00

Paid By:__________________

Received By:___________________

(Note:______________________________________________)

Only the fee prescribed in Sec. 21(l) shall be collected.

NO MINIMUM BID AMOUNT IN EJF AUCTION SALE.

In the case of BPI, as Successor-in-interest Of Far East Bank & Trust Company, vs. Cynthia L. Reyes, G.R. No. 182769, promulgated on February 1, 2012, the Supreme Court ruled that:

xxx a low price is more beneficial to the mortgage debtor for it makes redemption of the property easier. Xxx

Citing the case of The National Loan and Investment Board v. Meneses, the court emphasized that:

xxx. When there is a right to redeem, inadequacy of price should not be material because the judgment debtor may re-acquire the property or else sell his right to redeem and thus recover any loss he claims to have suffered by reason of the price obtained at the execution sale. Thus, respondent stood to gain rather than be harmed by the low sale value of the auctioned properties because it possesses the right of redemption. x x x

XI. SMALL CLAIMS

The Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, as amended, dated March, 2010 provides filing fees such as:

a) Fees Prescribed under Sec. 8(a) of Rule 141 as amended; plus,

b) For small claims cases filed by frequent filers, additional filing fee of:

P500 = if >10 but <21 claims filed by the same party; or

P500 + P100 = if >20 but <31 claims filed by the same party; or

P500 + P100 + P100 = if >30 but <41 claims filed by the same party; or

P500 + P100 + P100 + P100 = if >40 but <51 claims filed by the same party; or

So on and so forth until 1,400th claim – the maximum filing fee of P20,000.

46


c) Additional Filing Fee is to be deposited to the Judiciary Development Fund account.

XII. ELECTION CONTESTS/PROTESTS:

Section 1, Rule 7 of the 2010 Rules of Procedure in Election Contests before the Courts involving Elective Municipal Officials provides that:

“No protest, counter protest or petition for quo warranto shall be accepted for filing without the payment of a filing fee in the amount of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) for every protest, counter protest or petition for quo warranto filed.

If claims for damages and attorney’s fees are set forth in a protest or counter-protest, additional filing fees shall be paid in accordance with the schedule under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended.

Section 2, ibid., requires the protestant to make a cash deposit, in addition to the fees prescribed in the preceding section, the following amounts:

a) P1,000.00 per precinct but not less than P25,000.00, to be paid upon filing of the election protest; plus

b) P25,000.00 for the cost of bringing to court and of storing and maintaining the PCOS, the consolidation machines and other automated election paraphernalia brought to court as evidence or as necessary equipment in considering the protested or counter-protested ballots.

NOTA BENE:

if the amount deposited does not exceed P100,000.00, the required sum shall be paid in full within 10 days from the filing of the protest or counter-protest; or

if the required deposit shall exceed P100,000.00, a cash deposit in the amount of P100,000.00 shall be made within 10 days from the filing of the protest or the counter-protest. The balance shall be paid in instalments under the schedule the court may require after hearing the protestant or counter-protestant on the matter.

Otherwise, an automatic dismissal of the protest or counter-protest.

XIII. RETIREMENT/RESIGNATION/PROMOTION/TRANSFER

Circular No. 41-2002, dated March 26, 2002, provides that the an applicant for compulsory retirement, who is/was an Accountable Officer, must inform the Court Management Office, OCA that he is compulsorily retiring from the service a year earlier.

His Executive/Presiding Judge must designate an Officer-In-Charge two (2) months before the effectivity date of retirement of the incumbent Accountable Officer.

47


XIV. CHECKLIST OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXAMINATION ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER

The following documents are needed for the examination of the books of accounts of an accountable officer applying for clearance from the Fiscal Monitoring Division, Court Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator:

1) OFFICIAL CASHBOOKS & TRIPLICATE COPY OF OFFICIAL RECEIPTS ISSUED;

2) FILE COPY(IES) OF MONTHLY REPORT OF COLLECTIONS AND DEPOSITS TOGETHER WITH THE DULY VALIDATED DUPLICATE COPIES OF REMITTANCE ADVICES/DEPOSIT SLIPS AND/OR PMO STUBS OR CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF OFFICIAL RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT AS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR PMO REMITTANCES FOR THE SAME PERIOD STATED ABOVE FOR THE FOLLOWING FUNDS:

A. Judiciary Development FundB. Special Allowances for the Judiciary (SAJ)C. Fiduciary FundD. Sheriff Trust FundE. Mediation Fund (MF)

3) LIST OF FIDUCIARY FUND COLLECTIONS (CASHBONDS/SURETY BONDS/PROPERTY BONDS/RENTAL DEPOSITS/CONSIGNATION);

4) LIST OF SHERIFF'S TRUST FUND COLLECTIONS;

5) LIST OF WITHDRAWN FIDUCIARY FUNDS (CASHBONDS/SURETY BONDS/PROPERTY

BONDS/RENTAL DEPOSITS/CONSIGNATION);

6) LIST OF WITHDRAWN SHERIFF'S TRUST FUND;

7) INCLUDE THE FILE COPY(IES) OF MONTHLY REPORT OF COLLECTIONS, DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS TOGETHER WITH THE READABLE CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF ALL PASSBOOKS, DEPOSIT & WITHDRAWAL SLIPS, COURT ORDER AUTHORIZING THE WITHDRAWALS MADE, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT OF LITIGANTS/BONDSMAN FOR EVERY CASE, AND THE ORIGINAL COPY OF SURRENDERED OFFICIAL:

a) Judiciary Development Fundb) Special Allowances for the Judiciary (SAJ)c) Fiduciary Fundd) Sheriff Trust Funde) Mediation Fund (MF)

8) STATEMENT OF UNWITHDRAWN FIDUCIARY FUND/SHERIFF'S TRUST FUND (CASHBONDS/SURETY BONDS/PROPERTY BONDS/RENTAL DEPOSITS/CONSIGNATION)

9) IN CASE OF WITHDRAWALS FROM FIDUCIARY FUND ARE MADE BY CHECKS, IT MUST BE SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING:

a) List of Checks Issued, as per attached formb) List of Stale/Cancelled/Encashed Checks paid by the bank as of the cut-off datec) Monthly Bank Statementsd) List of Outstanding Checks as of the cut-off datee) Bank to Book Reconciliation

The Total Amount of the Unwithdrawn Fiduciary Fund/Sheriff’s Trust Fund must tally with the Passbook balance (interest earned net of withholding tax should be deducted from the total deposits made) and the Cashbook balance.

48


In case you have no Sheriff’s Trust Fund Collections, a Certification and Explanation to that effect (with court’s seal) is required to be issued by the Clerk of Court and noted by the Judge.

If there are direct deposits made by the litigants and/or deposits made by the Clerk of Court/OIC to the Municipal/City/Provincial Treasurer’s Office, a Certification as to the Unwithdrawn Fiduciary Fund must be requested as of the last day in office/cut-off date to be certified correct by the Municipal/City/Provincial Treasurer and Accountant.

10) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR FIDUCIARY FUND/SHERIFF'S TRUST FUND:

a) Summary of Interest Earned on Fiduciary Fund/Sheriff's Trust Fund (one form for each bank account/each fund).

b) List of Confiscated Bonds to be supported by copy(ies) of deposit slip(s) proof of remittance(s)

c) Official Receipts issued under General Fund prior to November 1999 and Judiciary Development Fund effective November 1999

d) Bank Passbook(s) (all filled-up & current copy(ies) and Bank Certificate as of the cut-off date.

11) Others:

a) Statement of Turnover of Accountability to be signed by the incoming Clerk of Court/ Accountable Officer and noted by the Presiding Judge.

b) Official designation of subsequent/incoming Clerk of Court/Officer-in-Charge and the duly accomplished Personal Data Form (With Required Format).

c) Inventory of Used and Unused Official Receipts, as per attached formd) List of Cancelled Official Receipts for all fundse) Affidavit of Undertaking if travelling abroad or filing a long leave of absence.

By: Dexter S. IlaganOfficer-In-ChargeFiscal Monitoring DivisionCourt Management Office, OCASupreme Court

49

Documents

Handout for Clerks of Court