G.R. No. P-04-1794; April 14, 2004
Eugenio C. Gonzales, et al. vs. Mariano S. Familara III, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court of Roxas (Branch 43), Oriental Mindoro

FACTS

Complainants, represented by Atty. Benjamin Relova, charged respondent Clerk of Court Mariano S. Familara III with gross negligence and dereliction of duty for failing to immediately deposit a manager’s check for ₱300,000.00, which was tendered as a consignation in Civil Case No. C-351. They alleged this violated Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92, which mandates the immediate deposit of all fiduciary collections with an authorized government depository bank. They argued the inaction deprived the National Treasury of potential interest and could have prejudiced their client.
In his defense, respondent explained he conferred with Presiding Judge Antonio M. Rosales, who advised against immediate deposit so the original check would be readily available for marking and identification as evidence during proceedings. The check was subsequently marked as Exhibit “N” during pre-trial. Respondent emphasized he acted without bad faith, following the judge’s prerogative on trial conduct, and noted the check became stale due to protracted litigation caused by numerous pleadings filed by the complainants’ counsel.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Clerk of Court is administratively liable for not immediately depositing the consignation check pursuant to Circular No. 13-92.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint and exonerated respondent. The Court clarified that Circular No. 13-92 applies to fiduciary collections like bail bonds and rental deposits. The subject check, however, was a consignation whose propriety was still pending judicial determination; it was not a fiduciary collection per se. The Court found respondent exercised prudence by consulting Judge Rosales, who reasonably believed the handling of the check was interwoven with judicial function, especially as it was needed as physical evidence.
The Court noted the check was converted into documentary evidence when marked as an exhibit. Crucially, there was no showing of bad faith, malice, or corrupt motive on respondent’s part. His reliance on the presiding judge’s lawful instruction regarding court procedure was justified. Thus, in the absence of any ill motive, and considering the contextual circumstances, his failure to deposit the check immediately did not constitute an administrative offense warranting penalty.