A.M. No. P-07-2337; August 3, 2007
Rolly Pentecostes, complainant, vs. Atty. Hermenegildo Marasigan, Clerk of Court VI, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Kabacan, North Cotabato, respondent.

FACTS

The complainant, Rolly Pentecostes, owned a Kawasaki motorcycle recovered by police from suspected carnappers. The motorcycle, an exhibit in Criminal Case No. 1010, was ordered turned over by the trial court to the respondent, Atty. Hermenegildo Marasigan, as Clerk of Court, who acknowledged receipt on August 1, 1995. After hearings, the court ordered the motorcycle’s release to Pentecostes on November 15, 2000. However, when Pentecostes sought its release, respondent repeatedly told him to wait and return. It was later discovered the motorcycle was missing.
Respondent claimed that after receiving the motorcycle, he instructed a utility worker to inspect it and subsequently transferred its custody to the Kabacan Police Station for safekeeping, citing the poor peace and order situation and lack of a suitable courthouse. He asserted that the motorcycle was already in a “cannibalized” and unserviceable state when Pentecostes first sought its release. Pentecostes countered that the vehicle was in good running condition when initially delivered to respondent and denied any knowledge of its alleged turnover to the police. He insisted respondent remained the responsible custodian.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Hermenegildo Marasigan is administratively liable for the loss of the motorcycle under his custody.

RULING

Yes, but only for Simple Misconduct, not Grave Misconduct. The Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable. The legal logic rests on the fundamental duty of a clerk of court as an accountable officer. As custodian of court exhibits, respondent was charged with their safekeeping. His act of unilaterally transferring the motorcycle to the local police station without a court order constituted a neglect of this duty. While his stated reason—concern for security due to local conditions—may have been practical, it did not absolve him of responsibility. The proper course was to seek explicit judicial authority for such a transfer.
The Court, concurring with the Office of the Court Administrator’s evaluation, found the evidence did not support a finding of Grave Misconduct, which requires elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or persistent disregard of established rules. Here, there was no substantial evidence of corrupt motive or willful violation. The loss occurred after the unauthorized transfer to another government agency. Thus, his failure to exercise due care and to follow proper procedure constituted Simple Misconduct, a less grave offense. Considering it was his first offense and absent proof of bad faith, the Court imposed a penalty of suspension for fifteen (15) days without pay.