Gonzales v. Familara
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns a charge of gross negligence, grave misconduct, and gross dereliction of duty against Atty. Mariano S. Familara III, Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Roxas, Oriental Mindoro. The complaint stems from the alleged failure to deposit a manager's check for P300,000.00, which was deposited for consignation in Civil Case No. C-351, entitled “Diana Gonzales and Eugenio Gonzales vs. Mrs. Vera P. Quiazon, et al.” The complainants allege that this failure violated Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92, depriving the National Treasury of potential interest and potentially prejudicing the clients. 2. Procedural History: The complaint was initiated by Atty. Benjamin Relova on behalf of Eugenio C. Gonzales, et al., via a letter dated April 23, 2003. The respondent, Atty. Familara, provided a comment explaining his actions, which included conferring with the Presiding Judge, Judge Antonio M. Rosales, who advised against immediate deposit. The complainants filed a reply, reiterating their stance on the mandatory nature of the circular. The respondent further clarified his position, distinguishing between legal fees and consignation deposits, and noting a similar complaint against Judge Rosales. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended re-docketing as a regular administrative complaint and reprimanding the respondent. 3. The Petition: The Supreme Court, in its resolution, disagreed with the OCA's recommendation. It clarified that Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 mandates immediate deposit of fiduciary collections, but found that the subject check was not a fiduciary collection per se, but rather a deposit for consignation whose propriety was yet to be determined. The Court noted that the respondent exercised prudence by conferring with the Presiding Judge and correctly heeded his advice. Furthermore, the check was marked as evidence, signifying its integration into the case record. The Court concluded that there was no showing of bad faith, malice, corrupt motive, or improper consideration, and therefore, the administrative complaint against the respondent Clerk of Court was dismissed.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Clerk of Court committed gross negligence, grave misconduct, and gross dereliction of duty for failing to immediately deposit the manager's check intended for consignation, and whether his actions violated Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint against respondent Clerk of Court Atty. Mariano S. Familara III. The Court found no showing that the respondent's failure to deposit the subject check immediately was prompted by bad faith, malice, corrupt motive, or improper consideration, thus exonerating him from administrative liability.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the respondent Clerk of Court committed gross negligence, grave misconduct, and gross dereliction of duty for failing to immediately deposit the manager's check intended for consignation and whether his actions violated Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92: The Court held that the respondent Clerk of Court should be exonerated from administrative liability. While Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 mandates the immediate deposit of fiduciary collections, the subject check was not a fiduciary collection per se, but rather a check sought to be deposited for consignation, the propriety of which was yet to be determined by the court. The respondent exercised prudence by conferring with Presiding Judge Antonio M. Rosales regarding the deposit. The Court found that the respondent correctly heeded the advice of the judge not to deposit the check immediately, as the judge believed the decision to deposit was "interwoven with the exercise of judicial function." Furthermore, the complainants themselves converted the check into documentary evidence by having it marked as Exhibit "N" during the pre-trial stage. This action by the complainants, coupled with the judge's advice, provided a reasonable basis for the respondent's temporary non-compliance with the strict mandate of the circular. The Court emphasized that there was no showing that the respondent's failure to deposit immediately was prompted by bad faith, malice, corrupt motive, or improper consideration, similar to the situation of Judge Rosales in a prior related case. Therefore, the administrative complaint was dismissed.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk of Court may be exonerated from administrative liability for failure to immediately deposit a check intended for consignation if there is no showing of bad faith, malice, corrupt motive, or improper consideration, especially when the deposit was advised against by the Presiding Judge and the check was subsequently marked as documentary evidence.