G.R. No. P-08-2423. March 6, 2008
Eufracio B. Pilipiña, Complainant, vs. Juanito R. Roxas, OIC-Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45, Manila, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative matter originated from a complaint against Sheriff IV Eufracio B. Pilipiña for his failure to fully implement a writ of execution in a civil case. Pilipiña had received ₱3,000 from the judgment creditor, Alpadi Development Corporation, for estimated expenses related to the writ’s enforcement. In his comment to that complaint, Pilipiña revealed that he had turned over the ₱3,000 to respondent Juanito R. Roxas, the Officer-in-Charge Branch Clerk of Court, for safekeeping. He issued an acknowledgment receipt. Pilipiña explained he did this to avoid the perceived delay of depositing the funds with the Office of the Clerk of Court, as the writ’s enforcement was scheduled days later.
The Supreme Court, noting this revelation, treated that portion of Pilipiña’s comment as an administrative complaint against Roxas for violating procedural rules, despite Pilipiña’s stated lack of intent to file a complaint. In his defense, Roxas asserted he merely accepted the money for safekeeping and argued it did not constitute the formal deposit required under the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Juanito R. Roxas is administratively liable for his act of receiving the ₱3,000 intended for sheriff’s expenses.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty. The Court adopted the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator. The last paragraph of Section 9, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court establishes a strict procedure for handling sheriff’s expenses: the interested party must deposit the court-approved estimated amount with the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff, who then disburses it to the assigned sheriff for liquidation.
Respondent Roxas, a mere OIC-Branch Clerk of Court, was not the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff authorized to receive such deposits. By accepting the money, he disregarded the clear rule and failed in his duty to ensure court personnel, like Sheriff Pilipiña, adhered to proper procedure. His claim of “safekeeping” does not excuse the violation; he should have directed the immediate turnover of the funds to the proper officer. As a ranking court officer charged with administrative supervision, Roxas was expected to exhibit faithfulness to duty and uphold procedural rules. His failure to do so, through carelessness or indifference, constitutes simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
The Court suspended respondent Roxas for one month and ordered him to turn over the ₱3,000 to the Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff within five days, with a warning against repetition.