Sunday, September 30, 2012

a delicate function of Clerks of Court...

Clerks of court perform a delicate function as designated custodians of the court's funds, revenues, records, properties and premises. As such, they are generally regarded as treasurer, accountant, guard and physical plant manager thereof. It is the clerks of court’s duty to faithfully perform their duties and responsibilities as such "to the end that there was full compliance with function, that of being the custodian of the court’s funds and revenues, records, properties and premises. They are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts. It is also their duty to ensure that the proper procedures are followed in the collection of cash bonds. Thus, their failure to do so makes them liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of such funds and property.

It is the duty of clerks of court to perform their responsibilities faithfully, so that they can fully comply with the circulars on deposits of collections. They are reminded to deposit immediately, with authorized government depositaries, the various funds they have collected because they are not authorized to keep those funds in their custody. The unwarranted failure to fulfill these responsibilities deserves administrative sanction and not even the full payment of the collection shortages will exempt the accountable officer from liability.
By failing to properly remit the cash collections constituting public funds, respondent violated the trust reposed in her as disbursement officer of the Judiciary. Her failure to deposit the said amount upon collection was prejudicial to the court, which did not earn interest income on the said amount or was not able to otherwise use the said funds. Her transgressions and her failure to satisfactorily explain her conduct, leave us no choice but to hold her liable for dishonesty, and to order her dismissal from office. The Court condemns any conduct, act or omission which violates the norm of public accountability or diminishes the faith of the people in the Judiciary (A.M. No. P-11-2965, July 31, 2012).

Sunday, September 23, 2012

for vacant position, associate justice SC..


JBC Releases List of Applicants and Recommendees for SC Associate Justice


Included in the list are Bato, Ramon Jr. M.; Bisquera, Joe-Santos B.; Carandang, Rosemari D.; Cornejo, Maria Cristina J.; Cruz-Avisado, Adoracion P.; De Leon, Magdangal M.; Dicdican, Isaias P.; Diokno, Jose Manuel I.; Floro, Florentino Jr. V.; Herbosa, Teresita J.; Leonen, Marvic M.; Lotilla, Raphael Perpetuo; Reyes, Andres Jr. B.; Reyes, Jose Jr. C.; Villanueva, Cesar L.; and Tijam, Noel G.


According to the JBC, all are still subject to the screening process of the JBC, i.e., their qualifications will still be evaluated by the JBC.

dismissed due to technicality


The Supreme Court has recently ordered the Court of Appeals (CA) to reinstate and to proceed with dispatch as to the Republic of the Philippines’ petition for certiorari which the CA had earlier dismissed for late filing. In the said petition, the Republic  assailed the trial court’s denial of its urgent motion for a writ of possession and order for it to immediately pay private respondent St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc. 100% of the value of the property the Republic had sought to expropriate for the construction of the Manila-Cavite Toll Expressway Project (MCTEP).
In dismissing the Republic’s petition for certiorari for being filed out of time, the CA had relied on the SC's Laguna Metts Corporation ruling that the 60-day period to file a petition for certiorari is non-extendible.
In a 12-page decision penned by Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, the Court’s Second Division, however, reiterated that while under Rule 65, sec. 4 and as applied in Laguna Metts Corporation, the general rule is that a petition for certiorari must be filed within 60 days from notice of the judgment, order, or resolution sought to be assailed, under exceptional circumstances and subject to the sound discretion of the Court, said period may be extended pursuant to the DomdomLabao, and Mid-Islands Power General Corporation rulings.
In this case, the Court held that the CA should have admitted the Republic’s petition since first, due to its (the CA’s) own lapse, thinking that what the Republic had filed was a petition for review, it  granted the extension sought by the Republic; second, because of the public interest involved, i.e., expropriation of private property for public use (MCTEP); and finally, no undue prejudice or delay will be caused to the parties in admitting the petition. (GR No.192908, Republic v. St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc., August 22, 2012)

Monday, September 17, 2012

Execution/Garnishment v. Government

“Trial judges should not immediately issue writs of execution or garnishment against the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities to enforce money judgments. They should bear in mind that the primary jurisdiction to examine, audit, and settle all claims of any sort from the Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities pertains to the Commission on Audit (COA) pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1445 (Government Auditing Code of the Philippines).”
The Court stressed that the UP is a government instrumentality performing the State’s constitutional mandate of promoting quality and accessible education and that all the funds going into its possession, including interest from its bank deposits constitute a “special trust fund,” the disbursement of which should always be aligned with the UP’s mission and purpose, and should always be subject to auditing by the COA. “Hence the funds subject of this action could not be validly made the subject of the RTC’s writ of execution or garnishment. The adverse judgment rendered against the UP in a suit to which it had impliedly consented was not immediately enforceable by execution against the UP because suability of the State did not necessarily means its liability,” ruled the Court. (UP v. Dizon, August 23, 2012)

Hotel's Civil Liability

“The hotel owner is liable for civil damages to the surviving heirs of its hotel guest whom strangers murder inside his hotel room.”
“The hotel business is imbued with public interest,” said the Court. “Catering to the public, hotelkeepers are bound to provide not only lodging for their guests but also security to the persons and belongings of their guests. Applying by analogy Article 2000, Article 2001, and Article 2002 of the Civil Code (all of which concerned the hotelkeepers’ degree of care and responsibility as to the personal effects of their guests), we hold that there is much greater reason to apply the same if not greater care and responsibility when the lives and personal safety of their guests are involved. Otherwise, the hotelkeepers would simply stand idly by as strangers have unrestricted access to all the hotel rooms on the pretense of being visitors of the guests, without being held liable should anything untoward befall the unwary guest.

burden of proof

In suspension and disbarment proceedings, lawyers enjoy the presumption of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant to clearly prove her allegations by preponderant evidence. In the absence of preponderant evidence, the presumption of innocence of a lawyer continues and the complaint against him must be dismissed.