Seliger v. Licay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Dolores C. Seliger filed an affidavit-complaint against respondent Alma P. Licay, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of San Juan, La Union. Complainant alleged that respondent collected ₱1,000.00 as a process server fee for a civil case where respondent's husband was the defendant. Instead of issuing an official receipt, respondent issued an acknowledgment receipt. Complainant also accused respondent of sleeping on her job and deliberately delaying the service of summons. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed respondent to comment. Respondent admitted collecting the fee, explaining that Section 10 of Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 allowed such collection for travel expenses of the process server. She argued that an acknowledgment receipt was sufficient as the fee did not fall under the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) or Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ). She denied corrupt motive and intent to delay the proceedings, stating that the actual service was the process server's responsibility. The Petition: The OCA found respondent guilty of simple misconduct and recommended a fine of ₱1,000.00 with a warning. The OCA noted that the charges of corruption and deliberate delay were unsubstantiated. The Supreme Court adopted the OCA's findings and recommendations.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Clerk of Court committed misconduct by collecting a process server fee and issuing an acknowledgment receipt instead of an official receipt, thereby violating Supreme Court Circular No. 26-27. Whether respondent violated Section 10(l) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court by failing to comply with the procedural requirements for depositing funds to defray travel expenses for service of summons.
Ruling
The Court finds respondent Alma P. Licay, Clerk of Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, San Juan, La Union, GUILTY of simple misconduct and imposes a FINE in the amount of One Thousand (₱1,000.00) Pesos with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of misconduct and violation of rules regarding official receipts: The Court found that respondent violated Supreme Court Circular No. 26-27, which mandates the issuance of official receipts for all payments received. Her explanation that the acknowledgment receipt was sufficient because the collected fee was not part of the JDF or SAJ was not a valid justification for non-compliance. As Clerk of Court, she performs delicate functions as cashier and disbursement officer and is expected to possess a high degree of discipline and efficiency. By issuing an acknowledgment receipt instead of an official receipt, she violated the trust and confidence reposed in her. The Court emphasized that it will not tolerate any conduct by court employees that violates public accountability and diminishes faith in the Judiciary. Simple misconduct is classified as a less grave offense, and considering this was the respondent's first infraction, the penalty was reduced to a fine. On the issue of violation of Section 10(l) of Rule 141: While Section 10(l) of Rule 141 allows the deposit of ₱1,000.00 to defray travel expenses for service of summons, it requires an estimate of travel expenses to be made first, followed by submission of a statement of liquidation to the court for approval. Respondent failed to comply with these procedural requirements.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk of Court who collects a process server fee without issuing an official receipt and without complying with the estimation and liquidation requirements under Rule 141 violates the mandate of Supreme Court Circular No. 26-27 and Section 10(l) of Rule 141, constituting simple misconduct.