Cosca vs. Palaypayon, Jr.

A judge who solemnizes marriages without the requisite marriage license and who fails to closely supervise the preparation of monthly reports, resulting in falsified entries, is administratively liable for serious misconduct and gross negligence, warranting a fine; a clerk of court who falsifies monthly reports, fails to account for fees collected, mishandles cash bonds by keeping them in personal custody without deposit, and unlawfully collects fees from exempt entities is guilty of serious misconduct and dishonesty warranting dismissal from the service.

Complainants Juvy N. Cosca, Edmundo B. Peralta, Ramon C. Sambo, and Apollo A. Villamora were employees of the Municipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, holding the positions of Stenographer I, Interpreter I, Clerk II, and Process Server, respectively. Respondents Judge Lucio P. Palaypayon, Jr. and Nelia B. Esmeralda-Baroy were respectively the Presiding Judge and Clerk of Court II of the same court. Baroy was appointed Clerk of Court on October 21, 1991, succeeding a retired clerk of court; her appointment was contested by Sambo, who had also applied for the position and who had informed Baroy of his intention to file a protest against her appointment. The administrative complaint was filed with the Office of the Court Administrator on October 5, 1992, charging respondents with six offenses spanning the period from 1991 to 1992.

Complainants Juvy N. Cosca, Edmundo B. Peralta, Ramon C. Sambo, and Apollo A. Villamora were employees of the Municipal Trial Court of Tinambac, Camarines Sur. Respondents Judge Lucio P. Palaypayon, Jr. and Nelia B. Esmeralda-Baroy served as Presiding Judge and Clerk of Court II, respectively, of the same court. Baroy was appointed Clerk of Court on October 21, 1991, after the retirement of the previous clerk of court; Sambo had also applied for the position and openly opposed Baroy's appointment, creating a hostile working relationship between them from the outset.

The first charge involved illegal solemnization of marriage. Complainants alleged that respondent judge solemnized the marriages of six couples without the requisite marriage license: Alano P. Abellano and Nelly Edralin, Francisco Selpo and Julieta Carrido, Eddie Terrobias and Maria Gacer, Renato Gamay and Maricris Belga, Arsenio Sabater and Margarita Nacario, and Sammy Bocaya and Gina Bismonte. The marriage contracts for these couples did not reflect any marriage license number, and respondent judge did not sign most of them or indicate the date of solemnization, allegedly waiting for the parties to later submit their marriage licenses. Complainant Sambo, who prepared the marriage contracts, called the attention of respondents to the lack of marriage licenses, but they proceeded with the ceremonies. Respondent judge denied solemnizing several of the marriages, claiming the ceremonies were merely simulated or that the parties lacked marriage licenses. For the marriage of Abellano and Edralin, he claimed it was solemnized under Article 34 of the Family Code, which exempts couples who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years from the marriage license requirement; however, the joint affidavit stated they had lived together for almost six years, yet Abellano was only eighteen years, two months, and seven days old at the time of marriage, which would have made him less than thirteen when cohabitation allegedly began. Photographs of the Bocaya-Bismonte wedding showed the full ceremony from start to the signing of the marriage certificate in front of the judge, contradicting his claim of a simulated ceremony. After the administrative case was filed, respondent judge solemnized the marriage of Abellano and Edralin a second time, this time with a marriage license.

The second charge involved falsification of the monthly report of cases for July and September 1992. The monthly report for July 1992, signed by both respondents, stated that only six documents were notarized, when the notarial register showed one hundred thirteen documents notarized for that month. For September 1992, the report stated five documents, while the notarial register showed fifty-six. Respondent judge admitted he did not personally verify the monthly reports, relying on respondent Baroy, and merely signed them after she had signed. Respondent Baroy blamed Sambo for preparing the reports and for custody of the notarial register, though she admitted she had been in full control of all court records including receipts since January 1992. The evidence also showed that notarial fees of P20.00 per document were collected, but only P18.50 was reported as remitted to the Supreme Court, and Baroy failed to present evidence of actual remittance. Solemnization fees for marriages that were not solemnized due to lack of marriage license were likewise not returned unless the parties demanded it.

The third charge alleged that Baroy gave respondent judge a brand-new air-conditioning unit as consideration for her appointment as clerk of court. Baroy purchased the unit on August 24, 1991 for P17,600.00, at a time when she was applying for the vacant clerk of court position. The unit was installed in the judge's chamber, still in its original box and unused. Respondents claimed the judge bought it from Baroy on installment basis for P20,000.00, evidenced by a typewritten receipt dated May 29, 1992 — eight months after Baroy's appointment and after the administrative case had been filed. The Municipal Mayor who signed as witness on the receipt did not testify.

The fourth charge concerned a cash bond of P1,000.00 paid by bondswoman Januaria Dacara in Criminal Case No. 5438, for which no official receipt was issued. Baroy admitted receiving the cash bond on October 29, 1991 and issuing only a temporary receipt. She did not deposit it with a bank or the Municipal Treasurer, keeping it in her personal cash box on the ground that the parties intended to settle amicably. She finally deposited it with the Land Bank of the Philippines only on March 26, 1993, after the administrative case was filed. On April 29, 1993, she withdrew the amount without any court order or authority, redepositing it only on July 23, 1993. A second cash bond of P3,000.00 from Alfredo Seprones in Criminal Case No. 5180 was received on February 28, 1993, for which Baroy issued an unnumbered temporary receipt and likewise did not deposit with any bank or the Municipal Treasurer until it was ordered released. Baroy admitted using only temporary receipts for cash bond deposits and other collections since assuming office, and only began issuing official receipts in February 1993 after the case was filed.

The fifth charge alleged that respondent judge took detention prisoners to work in his house, one of whom — Alex Alano, accused in Criminal Case No. 5647 for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act — escaped and was never recaptured. To conceal this, the judge ordered the case archived on April 6, 1992, stating in his order that there was no return of service for the warrant of arrest, when the records showed that Alano and co-accused Allan Adupe had in fact been arrested on April 12, 1991. The investigating judge found the testimonial evidence insufficient to prove that Alano was taken from jail by the judge, but noted that the archiving order was without basis and gave rise to suspicion.

The sixth charge involved the collection of filing fees from the Rural Bank of Tinambac, Camarines Sur, Inc., which was exempt from such fees under Section 14 of Republic Act 720, as amended, for collection cases filed against farmers. On February 4, 1992, the bank paid P400.00 in filing fees for ten civil cases. Baroy had sent a letter to the bank's manager dated January 28, 1992 threatening to submit all Rural Bank cases for dismissal if payment was not made. The P400.00 was deposited in Baroy's personal account and was turned over to the Municipal Treasurer only on March 12, 1992.

• Illegal Solemnization: Complainants argued that respondent judge solemnized six marriages without the requisite marriage license, that the marriage contracts did not reflect any marriage license number, and that the judge failed to sign the contracts or indicate the date of solemnization, thereby rendering the marriages void.
• Falsification of Monthly Reports: Complainants alleged that respondents made it appear in the monthly report for July 1992 that only seven marriages were solemnized and only six documents were notarized, when the notarial register showed one hundred thirteen documents notarized, and that respondents collected P20.00 per document but reported only P18.50, failing to account for the difference.
• Bribery for Appointment: Complainants contended that Baroy was appointed clerk of court because she gave a brand-new air-conditioning unit to respondent judge.
• Non-Issuance of Receipt for Cash Bond: Complainants alleged that a P1,000.00 cash bond paid by bondswoman Januaria Dacara was never issued an official receipt, was not made to appear in the records, was never returned despite the lapse of two years, and was never turned over to the Municipal Treasurer.
• Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners: Complainants contended that respondent judge took detention prisoners to work in his house, that one prisoner — Alex Alano — escaped while in his custody and was never recaptured, and that the judge ordered the case archived to conceal this fact.
• Unlawful Collection of Filing Fees: Complainants charged that respondents collected docket fees from the Rural Bank of Tinambac despite its statutory exemption, and that Baroy deposited the amount in her personal account instead of remitting it to the Supreme Court.

• Illegal Solemnization — Judge Palaypayon: Respondent judge contended that the Abellano-Edralin marriage fell under Article 34 of the Family Code and was exempt from the marriage license requirement; that he gave strict instructions to Sambo to furnish the couple a copy of the marriage contract and file it with the civil registrar but Sambo failed to do so; that the other five marriages were not solemnized by him since he refused to do so without a marriage license; that the Bocaya-Bismonte ceremony was merely simulated at the insistence of the parties' family; and that the unsigned and undated marriage contracts proved the marriages were not actually solemnized.
• Illegal Solemnization — Baroy: Respondent Baroy claimed that the marriage register was under the custody of Sambo, that it was Sambo who failed to furnish parties copies of marriage contracts and register them with the local civil registrar, and that Sambo kept the marriage contracts in preparation for the administrative case.
• Falsification — Judge Palaypayon: Respondent judge claimed the erroneous number of marriages was intentionally placed by Sambo; that the number should not be based on solemnization fees paid for that month; that there were only six notarized documents for July 1992; that Sambo should be held accountable for any unreceipted notarial fees; and that he merely had the ministerial duty to sign the monthly report.
• Falsification — Baroy: Respondent Baroy contended that the marriage registry was under Sambo's exclusive control; that she was accountable only for payments tendered to her by Sambo; that her notarial fees were duly covered by receipts; that the discrepancies were manipulated by Sambo; and that she was not in custody of the notarial register.
• Bribery — Judge Palaypayon: Respondent judge contended he endorsed all applications for the clerk of court position to the Supreme Court, had no hand in Baroy's appointment, and purchased the air-conditioning unit on installment basis on May 29, 1992, eight months after Baroy's appointment.
• Bribery — Baroy: Respondent Baroy claimed she purchased the air-conditioning unit while still in Naga City and sold it to the judge because she no longer needed it after transferring to Tinambac, with the installation and use by the judge done with the consent of the Municipal Mayor.
• Cash Bond — Baroy: Respondent Baroy countered that the cash bond was deposited with the former clerk of court, then turned over to the acting clerk of court, and later given to her under a corresponding receipt; that it was deposited with the bank; and that the bondswoman should follow proper procedure to withdraw it.
• Cash Bond — Judge Palaypayon: Respondent judge contended the case was archived for failure of the bondsman to deliver the body of the accused and that he had nothing to do with the payment of the cash bond, it being the duty of the clerk of court.
• Infidelity in Custody — Judge Palaypayon: Respondent judge denied employing detention prisoners, claimed he had adequate household help, and stated he ordered the case archived because it had been pending for more than six months with the accused at large.
• Filing Fees — Baroy: Respondent Baroy contended that Judge-Designate Felimon Montenegro instructed her to demand payment of docket fees from the rural bank; that she was not allowed by the Philippine National Bank to encash the check and was instructed to deposit it for clearing; and that after clearing, she remitted P400.00 to the Supreme Court and paid P400.00 to the Municipal Treasurer.

• Illegal Solemnization of Marriage: Whether respondent judge administratively liable for solemnizing marriages without the requisite marriage license.
• Falsification of Monthly Reports: Whether respondents falsified the monthly report of cases by understating the number of documents notarized and whether they failed to account for notarial and solemnization fees collected.
• Bribery for Appointment: Whether the sale of an air-conditioning unit from the clerk of court to the judge constituted bribery or impropriety in connection with the clerk of court's appointment.
• Mishandling of Cash Bonds: Whether respondent Baroy was administratively liable for issuing temporary receipts for cash bonds, failing to deposit them with the proper depository, and withdrawing them without court authority.
• Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners: Whether respondent judge was administratively liable for the escape of a detention prisoner allegedly taken to work in his house and for archiving the case without basis.
• Unlawful Collection of Filing Fees: Whether respondents unlawfully collected filing fees from a statutorily exempt entity and whether Baroy improperly deposited the amount in her personal account.

• Illegal Solemnization of Marriage: Yes. Respondent judge was found guilty of solemnizing marriages without a marriage license, particularly the Bocaya-Bismonte marriage, and was liable under Article 4(3) of the Family Code for civilly, criminally, and administratively liability for irregularities in the formal requisites of marriage.
• Falsification of Monthly Reports: Yes. Both respondents were found to have falsified the monthly reports for July and September 1992 by understating the number of documents notarized — reporting six when the notarial register showed one hundred thirteen for July, and five when the register showed fifty-six for September — and Baroy failed to account for notarial and solemnization fees collected.
• Bribery for Appointment: Not proven as bribery, but found to constitute impropriety. The sale of the air-conditioning unit between the clerk of court and the judge of the same court, executed after the administrative case was filed, gave rise to suspicion of impropriety, though the evidence did not establish bribery as charged.
• Mishandling of Cash Bonds: Yes. Respondent Baroy was found guilty of serious misconduct for issuing only temporary receipts for cash bonds, keeping them in her personal custody for extended periods without depositing with the proper depository, and withdrawing a cash bond without court authority.
• Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners: Not proven as charged, but the archiving order was found to be without basis. The testimonial evidence was insufficient to prove that respondent judge took the detention prisoner from jail, but the order archiving the case was issued on the false ground that there was no return of service of the warrant of arrest.
• Unlawful Collection of Filing Fees: Yes, as to Baroy. Respondent Baroy was found to have unlawfully required the Rural Bank of Tinambac to pay filing fees despite its statutory exemption under Republic Act 720, and to have unduly delayed turning over the amount to the Municipal Treasurer. Respondent judge was cleared because he was on sick leave and had nothing to do with the collection.

• Illegal Solemnization of Marriage: The Court found that respondent judge solemnized the marriage of Bocaya and Bismonte without a marriage license, as proven by the testimonies of Bocaya and witness Pompeo Ariola and by photographs showing the full ceremony from start to the signing of the marriage certificate in front of the judge. The judge's claim of a simulated ceremony was rejected as incredible — it would be highly improper for a judge to allow himself to be photographed as if solemnizing a marriage on a mere pleading of a stranger. With respect to the Abellano-Edralin marriage, the judge's invocation of Article 34 of the Family Code was untenable because the joint affidavit claiming six years of cohabitation was implausible given Abellano's age of eighteen years and two months at the time of marriage, which would have made him less than thirteen when cohabitation allegedly began. The judge's duty under Article 23 of the Family Code to furnish the contracting parties a copy of their marriage contract could not be delegated to subordinates. The fact that he did not sign the marriage contracts or indicate dates did not absolve him; under Article 4(3) of the Family Code, the solemnizing officer responsible for the irregularity in the formal requisites is civilly, criminally, and administratively liable. The judge's act of solemnizing the Abellano-Edralin marriage a second time with a marriage license, after the case was filed, gave rise to suspicion that the first ceremony was not genuinely under Article 34.

• Falsification of Monthly Reports: The monthly report for July 1992 showed six notarized documents, while the notarial register recorded one hundred thirteen; for September 1992, the report showed five, while the register showed fifty-six. The number of documents notarized in the monthly report must be based on entries in the notarial register, not on how many were paid for. Respondent judge admitted he did not personally verify the monthly reports, relying on Baroy — but a judge is required to closely supervise the preparation of reports he certifies as correct and cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of court personnel. Baroy's defense that Sambo prepared the reports and kept the notarial register was rejected because as clerk of court she was required to be in custody, control, and supervision of all court records, and she herself admitted being in full control of all records including receipts since January 1992. Baroy also failed to account for notarial fees of P20.00 per document when only P18.50 was reported as remitted, and she did not present evidence of actual remittance. Solemnization fees for marriages not solemnized were not returned unless demanded, further demonstrating failure to account for court collections.

• Bribery for Appointment: The evidence did not establish bribery as charged. However, the sale of the air-conditioning unit between the clerk of court and the judge of the same court was found to constitute at least impropriety. The unit was purchased by Baroy on August 24, 1991 while applying for the clerk of court position, was installed in the judge's chamber unused and still in its box, and the sale was evidenced only by a typewritten receipt dated May 29, 1992 — after the administrative case was filed and eight months after Baroy's appointment. The Municipal Mayor who signed as witness did not testify. These circumstances gave rise to suspicion, and the Court held that judges should avoid actions that would subject them to suspicion and that their conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety.

• Mishandling of Cash Bonds: Respondent Baroy received the P1,000.00 cash bond of Dacara on October 29, 1991 and issued only a temporary receipt. She kept it in her personal cash box rather than depositing it with a bank or the Municipal Treasurer, claiming the parties intended to settle amicably. She deposited it with the Land Bank only on March 26, 1993 — one year and five months later and after the case was filed. She then withdrew it on April 29, 1993 without any court order, redepositing it only on July 23, 1993. A second cash bond of P3,000.00 from Seprones was received on February 28, 1993 with an unnumbered temporary receipt and was likewise not deposited. The Revised Manual of Instructions for Treasurers, the Manual for Clerks of Court, DOJ Circular No. 52, and Supreme Court Memorandum Circular No. 5 all require that court deposits be deposited immediately upon receipt with the proper treasurer and that withdrawals be made only upon court order. Baroy's conduct demonstrated callous unconcern for her obligations as an accountable officer, constituting serious misconduct warranting removal from office.

• Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners: The testimonial evidence of former utility worker David Ortiz was found insufficient to prove that respondent judge took Alex Alano from the municipal jail, as complainants should have presented police records to corroborate the claim. However, the judge's order dated April 6, 1992 archiving Criminal Case No. 5047 was found to be without basis, as it stated there was no return of service of the warrant of arrest when the records showed that Alano and Adupe had been arrested on April 12, 1991. The judge's explanation that he archived the case because he heard from the police that Alano escaped was not acceptable; he should have set the case for hearing, required the police to explain in writing why Alano was not brought to court, and issued an arrest order before archiving. This circumstance gave rise to suspicion that Alano might have escaped while in the judge's custody.

• Unlawful Collection of Filing Fees: The Rural Bank of Tinambac was exempt from filing fees under Section 14 of Republic Act 720, as amended, for collection cases filed against farmers. Respondent Baroy sent a letter to the bank's manager threatening to submit all Rural Bank cases for dismissal if payment was not made. The P400.00 collected on February 4, 1992 was turned over to the Municipal Treasurer only on March 12, 1992, constituting undue delay. Respondent judge was cleared of this charge because he was on sick leave on February 4, 1992 and had nothing to do with the collection.

• Judicial Responsibility for Supervision of Court Personnel — A judge is required to closely supervise the preparation of monthly reports of cases that he certifies as correct and cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of court personnel. The judge is personally responsible for the proper discharge of his functions. Applied in this case to hold Judge Palaypayon liable for the falsified monthly reports despite his claim that he merely signed them after Baroy had signed, relying on her verification.
• Integrity in Judicial Office — Integrity in a judicial office is more than a virtue; it is a necessity. It applies without qualification as to rank or position, from the judge to the least of its personnel. The conduct of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility and must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be beyond suspicion. Applied in this case to emphasize the standard of conduct expected of both respondents and to justify the sanctions imposed.
• Liability for Irregularity in Formal Requisites of Marriage — Under Article 4(3) of the Family Code, the party or parties responsible for an irregularity in the formal requisites of marriage shall be civilly, criminally, and administratively liable. The solemnizing officer who solemnizes a marriage without the requisite marriage license is the one responsible for the irregularity. Applied to hold Judge Palaypayon administratively liable for solemnizing marriages without marriage licenses.
• Custody and Handling of Court Deposits — A clerk of court is not authorized to keep funds in custody; monies received must be deposited immediately upon receipt with the City, Municipal, or Provincial Treasurer, and withdrawals may be made only upon lawful order of the court. Official receipts must be issued upon receipt of deposits. Applied to hold Baroy guilty of serious misconduct for keeping cash bonds in her personal custody, issuing only temporary receipts, and withdrawing funds without court authority.
• Appearance of Impropriety — Judges should avoid actions that would subject them to suspicion, and their conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety. Applied to find that the sale of an air-conditioning unit between the clerk of court and the judge of the same court, executed under suspicious circumstances, constituted at least impropriety even if bribery was not proven.

• "We here emphasize once again our adjuration that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. His conduct, at all times, must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be beyond suspicion." — This passage articulates the canonical formulation of the standard of conduct required of all court personnel, frequently cited in subsequent administrative jurisprudence on judicial ethics.
• "Integrity in a judicial office is more than a virtue, it is a necessity." — A concise statement of the principle that integrity is an indispensable requirement, not merely a desirable quality, for those serving in the judiciary.
• "A judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of his court personnel." — This formulation, drawn from the Court's citation of Nidera vs. Lazaro, establishes that a judge's supervisory responsibility over court operations cannot be delegated or evaded by blaming subordinates.
• "For one, with respect to the charge of illegal solemnization of marriages, it does appear that he had not taken to heart, but actually trifled with, the law's concern for the institution of marriage and the legal effects flowing from civil status." — This passage explains the Court's rationale for modifying the investigating judge's recommended penalty upward, emphasizing the gravity of the judge's disregard for marriage law.

• The Phil. Trial Lawyers Asso. Inc. vs. Agana, Sr., 102 SCRA 517 — Cited for the proposition that a judge is personally responsible for the proper discharge of his functions and must closely supervise the preparation of monthly reports.
• Nidera vs. Lazaro, 174 SCRA 581 — Followed for the doctrine that a judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of court personnel; applied to hold Judge Palaypayon liable for the falsified monthly reports.
• Bendesula vs. Laya, 58 SCRA 16 — Cited for the principle that a judge is liable for negligence or failure to comply with his duty of closely supervising his clerk of court.
• Jaagueta vs. Boncasos, 60 SCRA 27 — Cited for the rule that judges should avoid actions subjecting them to suspicion and that their conduct should be free from the appearance of impropriety; applied to the air-conditioning unit transaction.
• Jones vs. Hortiguela, 64 Phil. 179 — Cited for the proposition that even if no one received a copy of the marriage certificate, the marriage is still valid; applied in analyzing the Abellano-Edralin marriage.
• Ferriola vs. Hiam, A.M. No. P-90-414, August 9, 1993 — Followed for the doctrine that a clerk of court is not authorized to keep funds in custody and must deposit them immediately upon receipt; applied to hold Baroy guilty of serious misconduct and dishonesty warranting dismissal.

• Article 3(2), Executive Order No. 209 (Family Code), as amended — Provides that a valid marriage license is a formal requisite of marriage, except in the cases provided for in the Code. Applied to establish that the marriages solemnized without a license were deficient in a formal requisite.
• Article 4, Executive Order No. 209 (Family Code), as amended — Provides that the absence of any essential or formal requisite renders the marriage void ab initio, and that while an irregularity in the formal requisites does not affect the validity of the marriage, the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally, and administratively liable. Applied to hold Judge Palaypayon administratively liable for solemnizing marriages without marriage licenses.
• Article 6, Family Code — Requires that the contracting parties declare before the solemnizing officer in the presence of at least two witnesses that they take each other as husband and wife before signing the marriage contract. Applied to reject the judge's claim that he had parties sign marriage contracts before the ceremony to save time.
• Article 22, Family Code — Requires that the marriage license number be indicated in the marriage contract. Applied to show that the marriage contracts were deficient.
• Article 23, Family Code — Requires the solemnizing officer to furnish the contracting parties a copy of the marriage contract and to send a copy to the local civil registrar. Applied to hold that this duty belongs to the judge and cannot be delegated to subordinates.
• Article 34, Family Code — Exempts couples who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years from the marriage license requirement. Applied to examine and reject the judge's claim regarding the Abellano-Edralin marriage, given the implausibility of the cohabitation period given Abellano's age.
• Article 352, Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 39, Act No. 3613 — Provides that priests, ministers, or civil authorities who perform or authorize illegal marriage ceremonies shall be punished under the Marriage Law. Noted as within the province of prosecutorial agencies, separate from the administrative liability addressed in the decision.
• Section 14, Republic Act 720, as amended — Exempts rural banks from payment of filing fees on collection cases filed against farmers. Applied to hold that the collection of filing fees from the Rural Bank of Tinambac was unlawful.
• Revised Manual of Instructions for Treasurers, Sections 183, 184, and 626; Manual for Clerks of Court, p. 127 — Provide that withdrawal of court deposits shall be by the clerk of court issuing an official receipt to the treasurer, and that court deposits cannot be withdrawn except by order of the court. Applied to hold Baroy liable for mishandling cash bonds.
• DOJ Circular No. 52 (April 26, 1968); Manual for Clerks of Court, p. 136 — Require clerks of court to immediately issue official receipts upon receipt of deposits and deposit the collection intact with the municipal, city, or provincial treasurer. Applied to hold Baroy liable for issuing only temporary receipts and failing to deposit funds promptly.
• Supreme Court Memorandum Circular No. 5 (November 25, 1982) — Provides that all collections of funds of fiduciary character, including rental deposits, shall be deposited immediately by the clerk of court with the City, Municipal, or Provincial Treasurer, and that no withdrawal shall be made except upon lawful order of the court. Applied to hold Baroy liable for keeping cash bonds in personal custody and withdrawing without court authority.

Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, and Mendoza, JJ., concurred. Cruz, J., took no part and did not participate in the deliberation. Bidin, J., was on leave.