Handout For Clerks of Court PDF

COLLECTION OF FEES – by DSI
I. INTRODUCTION
 Assessment & Collection of Docket Fees Being Judicial in Nature
 Substitution of Docket Fees Not Allowed
 Refund of Filing Fees Not Allowed
 Proceeds from Sale of Exhibits Shall Accrue to JDF
 Fines Imposed in Violation of Ordinance Shall Accrue to the Issuer
 Net Interest Earned & Confiscated Bond Shall Not Totally Accrue to GF
II. FUNCTIONS, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLERK OF COURT/ACCOUNTABLE
OFFICERS
III. COURT FUNDS
 All Court Funds and Its Particulars
 Mediation Fund
 Sheriff’s/Process Server’s Fund
IV. MONTHLY REPORTS OF COLLECTIONS, DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS
V. RULE 141 OF THE RULES OF COURT AND ASSESSMENT & COLLECTION OF DOCKET FEES
 Suspended Provisions
 Related Sections
 Estafa Cases
 Procedural Guidelines for BP Blg. 22
VI. THOSE EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES
VII. P1,000.00 DEPOSIT (STF) WITH THE COURT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE SHERIFF’S FEES
VIII. ASSESSMENT AND COMPUTATION OF DOCKET FEES
IX. CORPORATE REHABILITATION (Required Attachment For Docket Fees’ Computation)
X. EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE
 Court Procedures
 Related Court Issuances & Clarification
 Computation Exercises
XI. SMALL CLAIMS
XII. ELECTION CONTEST/PROTEST
XIII. RETIREMENT/RESIGNATION/PROMOTION/TRANSFER
XIV. CHECKLIST OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FINANCIAL AUDIT OF THE ACCOUNTABLE
OFFICER’S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS
By: Dexter S. Ilagan

Officer-In-Charge
Fiscal Monitoring Division
Court Management Office, OCA
Supreme Court
1
I. INTRODUCTION:
STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION RULE – words used in statutes are to be given their

usual and commonly understood meanings unless different meanings are plainly
intended.
I.1. ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF DOCKET FEES ARE JUDICIAL IN NATURE AND
THE OCA HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE IT.
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 42-20051, dated April 22, 2005, in relation to the resolution
of the Court En Banc dated March 8, 2005 in A.M. No. 05-3-03-0. The Court resolved,
upon the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, that:
(a) Questions relating to the assessment and collection of docket fees are
judicial in nature that should only be determined by the regular
courts and not through administrative proceedings; and
(b) Clarifying that the OCA has no authority to determine whether or not
the docket fees assessed or collected is proper or correct under
applicable rules, the same being a judicial matter.
I.2. SUBSTITUTION OF PAYMENTS OF DOCKET FEES FROM ONE COURT STATION TO

ANOTHER IS NOT ALLOWED.
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 95-20102, dated July 12, 2010, prohibits the substitution of
payments of docket fees from one court station to another pursuant to Supreme Court
En Banc Resolution dated June 15, 2010, A.M. No. 10-4-122-RTC. The Court Resolved,
upon recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, that substitution of
payments of docket fees from one court station to another, as a result of erroneous
filing of cases by reason of improper jurisdiction/venue, is not allowed.
I.3 REFUND OF FILING FEES PAID TO THE COURT IS NOT ALLOWED.
In a resolution of the Second Division, A.M. No. 09-2-67-RTC (RE: Request for the
Refund of Filing Fees paid to RTC, Dumaguete City, in Civil Case No. 08-14250), where
the RTC, Dumaguete City dismissed motion requesting the approval of refund of the
filing fees paid in Civil Case No. 08-14250 citing AM. No. 05-9-2566-MeTC, where the
Court ruled that it is only the Chief Justice who can authorize the refund/withdrawal of
filing fees paid in court, hence this petition;
The Court resolves to deny the request for the approval of refund of Mr. Andrew
Thomas Byrne for lack of merit, citing:
“that as a matter of policy, the Court looks with disfavour at the grant of
any request for the refund as this will set a dangerous precedent and
encourage litigants to file similar claims; and that the Court’s
pronouncement in Eriberto N. Suson vs. Court of Appeals and David S.
Odilao, Jr., G.R. No. 126749, August 21, 1997 is elucidating when it held:
1
Annex A
2
Annex B
2
“filing fees are intended to take care of court expenses in the handling of
cases in terms of cost of supplies, use of equipment, salaries and fringe
benefits of personnel, etc., computed as to man-hours used in handling
each case. The payment of said fees therefore cannot be made
dependent on the result of the action taken without entailing
tremendous losses to the government and to the Judiciary in particular.
I.4 PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF EXHIBITS SHALL BE DEPOSITED TO JDF.
Administrative Order No. 170-2008, dated November 11, 2008, directs

the Clerk of Court to remit to the Judiciary Development Fund the
proceeds from sale under a separate Remittance Advice to the credit of
the court involved with notice of such remittance furnished the Office of
the Court Administrator.
I.5 FINES IMPOSED IN VIOLATION OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE SHALL ACCRUE TO

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT.
In OCA CIRCULAR No. 10-2002, dated February 5, 2002, the

Second Division of the Supreme Court in its resolution dated January 14,
2002 under Administrative Matter No. 01-10-262-MTC, Re: Letter dated
September 25, 2000 of Anita D. Macawile, Clerk of Court, MTC,
Babatngon, Leyte, resolved to:
“xxx (1) CONSIDER the fines paid for violations of local ordinances
to have accrued exclusively to the local government; xxx”
All Clerks of Court are hereby directed to remit to the local

government unit, the fines paid for violations of local ordinances.
I.6 NOT ALL NET INTEREST EARNED AND CONFISCATED BOND SHALL ACCRUE TO
THE NATIONAL TREASURY [GENERAL FUND].
In a Court en banc resolution dated January 18, 2011, concerning A.M.

No. 05-3-35-SC (Re: Audit Observation Memorandum) and A.M. No. 10-8-3-SC
(Re: Fiduciary Fund Deposits Not Remitted to the Bureau of Treasury), the
Court ruled that:
1. Fiduciary Funds in custodia legis shall remain under the custody
and control of the courts, to be deposited and disposed of as the courts
may direct in the exercise of their judicial functions.
2. Interests on funds in custodia legis belong to the owners of the
principal of the funds, and shall be returned to the owners as may be
directed by the Court, subject to a service fee of 10% per annum of the
interest earned which shall accrue to the Judiciary Development Fund in
accordance with PD 1949, as amended, provided that this service fee
shall not apply to funds of the government.
3. Interest on deposits of the Judiciary Development Fund belong to
the beneficiaries of the JDF, and thus such interest form part of the JDF
and shall not be remitted to the National Treasury.
3
4. Forfeited cash deposits made to guarantee undertakings in favor

of the government, and the interest thereon, are income of the
government and shall be remitted to the National Treasury.
5. Fiduciary funds deposited with the Court in its administrative
capacity, and not in custodia legis, shall be remitted to the National
Treasury in accordance with Joint Circular No. 1-97.
6. Unclaimed fiduciary funds of private parties, including the
interest thereon, shall remain with the courts until a law is passed
authorizing the escheat or forfeiture of such unclaimed funds in
favour of the State.
7. The amounts previously remitted by the Court to the
National Treasury under the staggered payments proposed by
former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno to the Commission on Audit
shall be credited to whatever amounts the Court is required to
remit to the National Treasury under paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 above.
II. FUNCTIONS, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLERK OF COURT/ACCOUNTABLE

OFFICERS:
Under the Supreme Court Manual for the Clerks of Court, the general functions
and duties of the Clerk of Court [Accountable Officer] are as follows:
(1) the administrative officer of the Court under the supervision of the
Executive Judge;
(2) Has control and supervision over his personnel, all properties and
supplies in his office;
(3) Acts on applications for leave of absence and signs daily time records of
his staff, as well as the security and janitorial services personnel;
(4) Determines docket fees;
(5) Assists in the raffle of cases to the branches and judicial
notices/summons to accredited publishers;
(6) Issues clearances in appropriate cases;
(7) Acts as ex-officio notary public;
(8) Acts as ex-officio sheriff;
(9) Represents the Court in administrative dealings with the local
government units and other agencies; and
(10) Performs and discharges such duties as may be assigned by the
Executive Judge.
The Supreme Court ruled on the functions and duties of all Clerks of Court
(Accountable Officers), they are, but not limited to:
A) CLERK OF COURT’S FUNCTIONS/DUTIES ARE NOT MERELY MINISTERIAL.
BSP v. Executive Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas, et. al, A.M.No. RTJ-06-1999

[Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1903-RTJ].
FACTS:
The COC allowed the withdrawal and release from the custody of
the court garnished funds for Civil Case No. 99-95993 of RTC-Manila,
4
Branch 12, entitled BSP v. Orient Commercial Banking Corporation, et. al.,
in the total amount of P97,388,468.35 to the Philippine Bank of
Communications (PBCOM) and its counsel of record who are not parties
to the case. PBCOM was the petitioner in a separate Civil Case, with No.
01-101190 filed with the RTC-Manila, Branch 42, entitled PBCOM v.
Spouses Jose C. Go and Elvy T. Go, who were part owners of the Orient
Commercial Banking Corporation.
COC claimed that she was not aware that the garnished amounts
do not belong to Spouses Jose C. Go and Elvy T. Go; alleged that the
release of the questioned funds to PBCOM was done in line with her
ministerial duty as clerk of court; and that the release was in good faith,
especially after she had been assured that the amount was garnished and
identified as belonging to parties against whom the notice of
garnishment was enforced.
The SC ruled that the disputed funds were clearly under the
custody of Branch 12, not Branch 42.
The Supreme Court held that:
“Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff xxx cannot avoid

liability by hiding behind the mantle of “performance of a
ministerial duty”. She cannot merely say that she found
the supporting papers for the release of the funds to be in
order. xxx she knew or should have known that the funds
were under the custody of Judge xxx of RTC, Branch 12,
xxx, who, as early as February 7, 2000, issued an order
directing the Clerk of Court, xxx, to refer to the court all
payments from lessees of the defendants in Civil Case No.
99-95993 to the court, for its proper control. If as she said,
her 15 years of service in the judiciary have been marked
by competence on her part, we wonder why she did not
check the background of the documents presented to her,
especially in light of Judge Carandang’s order and the big
amounts involved. xxx simply overlooked the need for her
to carefully examine the papers brought to her by
Cachero. She should have exercised prudence before
taking action on the papers. Funds in custodia legis pass
through her office en route to safekeeping (in depository
banks) and for purpose of release. We, thus, find her liable
for neglect in the performance of her duties.”
The Clerk of Court was declared guilty of simple neglect of duty, and
is suspended for three (3) months without pay.
B) CLERK OF COURT SHOULD EXERCISE SERVICE WITH LOYALTY, INTEGRITY

AND EFFICIENCY; CHARGED WITH PRESERVING THE INTEGRITY OF COURT
PROCEEDINGS.
5
OCA v. Atty. Fermin M. Ofilas and Ms. Aranzazu V. Baltazar, COC VI

and Clerk IV, respectively, both of the RTC of San Mateo, Rizal, A.M. No. P-05-
1935, April 23, 2010.
FACTS:
The Clerk of Court, Atty. Fermin Ofilas, delegated the financial

transactions of the court to his two subordinates, namely Clerk IV
Aranzazu V. Baltazar, former cash clerk of Atty. Ofilas’ predecessor; and
Olga A. Sacramento, the incumbent cash clerk at the time of the audit
who assumed office on May 2001.
Ms. Baltazar was in charge of all funds collected and paid to the
court. She issued official receipts for all funds collected, prepared the
monthly reports of collections, and made bank deposits and withdrawals
for submission to the Accounting Division of the OCA. She was practically
the custodian of all court financial records and books of accounts.
Although she was the then cash clerk, Ms. Sacramento merely assisted in
the preparation of monthly reports and only issued official receipts in the
absence of Ms. Baltazar.
During the cash count of the auditors, the amount of unremitted

cash collections in the possession of Ms. Baltazar did not tally with the
amount collected for the respective periods, resulting in an overage of
P39,152.00 which was due to unaccounted/unremitted collections from
past years. Atty. Ofilas voluntarily executed an affidavit, dated March 11,
2004. He stated that because Executive Judge Elizabeth Balquin-Reyes
politely declined to be one of the signatories for the court’s bank
transactions until the issuance of her official designation, the office
adopted the practice of retaining some amount of cash from the
collections in order to answer for the refunds of cash bonds of litigants.
Thereafter, he relieved Ms. Baltazar of her functions as collecting officer.
Accountable forms such as triplicate copies, official receipts and

official cashbooks were in disarray. Some were detached from their
respective booklets. Cancelled/spoiled Official Receipts were not properly
marked or identified and the original and duplicate copies of the
cancelled or spoiled receipts were not attached to the triplicates.
The official cash books were not properly accomplished and

contained illegible entries. Daily collections were not regularly entered
therein contrary to AC Nos. 3-2000, 22-94 and 32-93.
There were discrepancies and irregularities in the financial

transactions which resulted to cash shortage of more than P2.3M.
An aggregate total of P279,200.00 confiscated cash bond was

disclosed. Cashbonds with order of confiscation since 1992 were not
withdrawn and remitted to the National Treasury (up to November 1999)
and to the Judiciary Development Fund (from November 1999).
6
Atty. Ofilas was found to have deposited the amount of

P3,444,070.00 in his personal account because he was allegedly
unfamiliar with the Sheriff Trust Fund Account. Atty. Ofilas was
reprimanded and sternly warned by the court.
Clerk IV and former Cash Clerk Ms. Baltazar readily confessed her
shortage and willingly executed an affidavit, admitting that she had
committed grave negligence and malversation of funds when she allowed
other court employees to borrow from the court funds in her custody,
causing the shortage as discovered by the audit team.
With respect to records of extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage,

the audit team found it difficult to determine payment of the sheriff’s
commission because the Official Receipts issued in connection with the
applications did not reflect the case numbers and, worse, the receipts
were not attached to the records. Out of 2,650 petitions filed as of March
5, 2004, only 2,491 case folders were presented for audit.
A significant number of check payments were converted to cash

instead of being directly deposited to the Judicial Development Fund and
the General Fund.
Atty. Ofilas refuted the charges against him. He blamed the lack of
orientation and proper turnover of responsibilities and accountabilities
when he assumed the functions of his office on January 28, 1992.
Unaware of the basic procedures of his new office, he decided to let the
staff continue what they had been doing, especially Ms. Baltazar who was
in charge of the financial transactions of the court from the collection of
legal fees, remittance thereof to the depositary bank, safekeeping of the
daily collections, and the preparation of monthly financial reports and
books of accounts.
RULING:
“No less than the Constitution mandates that “public

office is a public trust.” Service with loyalty, integrity and
efficiency is required of all public officers and employees, who
must, at all times, be accountable to the people. In a long line of
cases, the Court had untiringly reminded employees involved in
the administration of justice to faithfully adhere to their
mandated duties and responsibilities. Whether committed by the
highest judicial official or by the lowest member of the workforce,
any act of impropriety can seriously erode the people’s
confidence in the Judiciary. “Verily, the image of a court of justice
is necessarily mirrored in the conduct of its personnel. It is their
sacred duty to maintain the good name and standing of the court
as a true temple of justice.”
“Next to the Judge, the clerk of court is the chief administrative

officer charged with preserving the integrity of court proceedings.
7
A number of non-judicial concerns connected with trial and

adjudication of cases is handled by the clerk of court, demanding
a dynamic performance of duties, with the prompt and proper
administration of justice as the constant objective. The nature of
the work and of the office mandates that the clerk of court be an
individual of competence, honesty and integrity.
Court personnel tasked with collections of court funds, such as

clerk of court and cash clerks, should deposit immediately with
authorized government depositories the various funds in their
custody. Delayed remittance of cash collections constitutes gross
neglect of duty because this omission deprives the court of
interest that may be earned if the amounts are deposited in a
bank.”
“Atty. Fermin M. Ofilas, former Clerk of Court, Regional

Trial Court, San Mateo, Rizal is hereby found GUILTY of gross
inefficiency with FORFEITURE of all his retirement benefits, except
his terminal leave pay. Further, he is DISQUALIFIED from re-
employment in any branch or instrumentality in the government,
including government-owned and controlled corporations.”
C) CLERK OF COURT SHOULD NOT ISSUE HANDWRITTEN RECEIPTS.
In the case of OCA vs. GREGORIO B. SADDI, Clerk of Court, MTC,

Sasmuan, Pampanga, A.M. No. P-10-2818, Formerly A.M. No. 10-4-54-MTC,
the Supreme Court held that:
“Saddi’s act of issuing a handwritten receipt for the payment of

the execution fee did not satisfy the requirement of SC Circular
No. 26-97 for a clerk of court to issue official receipts promptly for
all monies received by him. The circular specifically provides for
the form which said official receipts may take, that is, either in the
form of stamps or officially numbered receipts – never
handwritten. Moreover, there is no indication that Saddi properly
accounted for, remitted and reported such payment under the
JDF Account.
By these deplorable acts of gross dishonesty, grave misconduct

and gross neglect of duty, Saddi has, no doubt, undermined the
people’s faith in the courts and, ultimately, in the administration
of justice. Dishonesty alone, being in the nature of a grave
offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the
service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued
leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for reemployment in
the government service. Dishonesty has no place in the
Judiciary. Gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct, likewise,
carry the same penalty.
The Clerk of Court was held GUILTY of Gross Dishonesty, Grave

Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty and of violating SC Circular No. 26-97,
8
and all his retirement benefits were forfeited, except accrued leave credits,
with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the
government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
D) CLERK OF COURT’S RELIANCE ON EMPLOYEES OF LOWER RANK PROJECTS

NOTHING ELSE BUT GROSS INEFFICIENCY AND INCOMPETENCE.
In the case of OCA v. Atty. Magdalena L. Lometillo, et. al., A.M. No. P-09-
2637, April 5, 2011, the Court held that:
“Service with loyalty, integrity and efficiency is required of all

public officers and employees, who must, at all time, be
accountable to the people.
The performance of one’s duties in a perfunctory manner is never

justified especially when reliance on employees of lower rank
projects nothing else but gross inefficiency and incompetence.
Encashing postdated checks of employees is unacceptable and

dangerous laxity in her style of supervision over the staff,
regardless of later issuance of memorandum prohibiting the
same.
Mediocrity is not at all fit for a member of a competent tasked to

dispensed justice. Her failure to exhibit administrative leadership
and ability renders her guilty of negligence, incompetence and
gross inefficiency in the performance of her official duty as Clerk
of Court.”
E) CLERK OF COURT IS TASKED TO ENSURE THAT HIS/HER SUBORNINATES

PERFORM THEIR DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS.
In the case of OCA v. Bernardino, A.M. No. P-97-1258, January 31, 2009,
450 SCRA 89, 116, the Court held that:
“Clerk of Court “can not pass the blame for the shortages incurred
to his/her subordinates who perform the task of handling,
depositing, and recording of cash and check deposits xxx” for it is
“incumbent upon the Clerk of Court to ensure his/her
subordinates are performing his/her duties and responsibilities in
accordance with the circulars on deposits and collections to
ensure that all court funds are properly accounted for.”
F) CLERK OF COURT IS THE CUSTODIAN OF THE COURT’S FUNDS, REVENUES,

RECORDS, PROPERTY AND PREMISES.
In the case of OCA v. Orbigo-Marcelo, 416 Phil. 356, 364 (2001), the
Court held that:
“The Clerks of Court perform a very delicate function as custodian

of the court’s funds, revenues, records, property and premises.”
9
G) CLERK OF COURT IS MULTI-TASKED.
In the case of OCA v. Elumbaring, A.M. No. P-10-2765, September 13,

2011, respondent failed to submit financial reports since March 2006, and
incurred cash shortages in the FF, SAJF and JDF amounting to P85,540.45,
P153,356.47 and P90,578.23, respectively, resulted from the accumulated
non-remittance of these collections, as of November 18, 2008. Elumbaring
engaged in the practice of lapping collection and remittances, and delayed
the refund of cash bonds for not less than 20 days even the same was
already withdrawn right after the issuance of the court order.
Elumbaring disputed the audit team’s findings by submitting

machine-validated deposit slips for JDF and SAJF amounting to P90,578.23
and P153,356.47, both dated November 28, 2008. Shortage in FF was
partially restituted on November 19 and 28, 2008 in the amounts of P21,000
and P50,000.00, respectively, leaving a balance of accountability of
P14,540.45.
Elumbaring likewise argued that she does not know to operate a

computer and relied on the court personnel to do the financial reports. She
also claimed that it was not stated in her job description as clerk of court that
she will act as the “financial accountable officer”. She said that if she had
known earlier, she would not have applied for the position as she knew she
was not suited for that kind of work.
RULING:
Citing the case of OCA v. Roque, A.M. No. P-06-2200, February 4,

2009, 578 SCRA 21, 26, the Supreme Court held that:
“Clerks of Court wear many hats – those of treasurer,

accountant, guard and physical plant manager of the court,
hence, they are “entrusted with the primary responsibility of
correctly and effectively implementing regulations regarding
fiduciary funds” and are thus, “liable for any loss, shortage,
destruction or impairment of such funds and property.”
Elumbaring was found GUILTY of DISHONESTY and DISMISSED

from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except
accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in the
government, including government-owned or controlled
corporations.
H) PERSONAL FINANCIAL PROBLEMS CAN NEVER BE A VALID EXCUSE FOR

USING COURT FUND.
In the case of OCA v. Nacuray, A.M. No. P-03-1739, April 7, 2006, where
respondent was found guilty of series of tampering of the amounts in the
duplicate and triplicate copy of the official receipts. Respondent admitted
that she altered the amount paid to her by understating the same in the
duplicate copy of the OR, which is the copy submitted to the Supreme Court.
10
The figures indicated therein are the same figures reported as collections and
are the basis of deposits made with the Landbank of the Philippines.
Respondent, however, reflected the correct amount paid in the original copy
of the receipt [which is given to the payor], and in the triplicate copy [which
is retained by the OCC] for record and authentication purposes. Respondent
simply reasoned that financial difficulties had led her to misappropriate the
court’s funds.
“xxx Personal problems cannot justify the misuse by any court

employee of judiciary funds in their custody.10 Those are government
funds, and public servants have absolutely no right to use them for
their own purposes. xxx
WHEREFORE, respondent Normalyn P. Nacuray is found GUILTY of

gross dishonesty and grave misconduct and is DISMISSED from the
service, effective immediately. All benefits -- except accrued leave
credits, if any -- are also FORFEITED, with prejudice to her
reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government,
including any government-owned and -controlled corporation. She is
further ORDERED to restitute the amount of seven hundred seventy-
seven thousand seven hundred seventy-three pesos and eighty-six
centavos (P777,773.86).”
I) CLERK OF COURT CANNOT RESORT TO PROTESTATION OF GOOD FAITH TO

OVERRIDE THE MANDATORY NATURE OF THE CIRCULARS.
In the case of OCA v. Maura D. Campano, Clerk of Court, MTC, San Jose,
Occidental Mindoro; Nestor Robles, MCTC, Magsaysay-Rizal-Calintaan, Occidental
Mindoro; and Yolanda A. Bonus, Interpreter I, MCTC, Magsaysay-Rizal-Calintaan,
Occidental Mindoro, A.M. Nos. P-04-1787 & P-05-1980:
FACTS:
Respondents were just involved in the irregularities committed by

their former presiding judge, Josefino A. Garillo. Respondents incurred cash
shortages because their former judge was borrowing money from the
Fiduciary Fund collections. One of the respondents, Ms. Bonus, acceded to
the instruction of Judge Garillo to tamper with the records to cover up the
borrowings of the latter. Judge Garillo would personally received the cash
bonds posted and would instruct Ms. Bonus to use the JDF official receipts
and make it appear that they just received a fee amounting to P10.00 or
P20.00. According to the respondents, Judge Garillo never once handed over
the fees he received for officiating weddings and usually committing
extortions.
Respondents felt constrained to hand over the money because Judge

Garillo was insistent. Respondents reasoned out that they were not in the
position to question his authority.
11
RULINGS OF THE COURT:
“Sadly, it was the judge himself in this case who master-

minded the mindless pilferage of court funds. And fully knowing that
the judge was helping himself into the money, the court staff involved
took no action to protect the court’s interest. The Court cannot rule
out the possibility that they were helping themselves, too, to that
money.
xxx
As regards the liabilities of Clerk of Courts Campano and

Robles and in the latter’s place, court interpreter Bonus, this Court
cannot accept the uniform excuse that they proffer, namely, Garillo’s
persistence and official ascendance left them no choice but to let him
dip his fingers into the court funds and, further, help him cover-up the
paper trail of his illegal deeds. As accountable officers, the
subordinate employees mentioned had the task of : 1) collecting the
proper amount of fees from parties, counsels, or surety companies;
2)issuing original recipts for all amounts collected, and not merely
furnish parties with photocopies; 3) taking all reasonable steps to
maximize the risk of losses, defalcations, and other types of
irregularities; and 4) immediately depositing collected amounts with
the LBP. xxx
xxx
xxx, the safekeeping of funds and collections is essential to an

orderly administration of justice, and no protestation of good faith
can override the mandatory nature of the circulars designed to
promote full accountability for government funds.”(OCA vs. Bernardino)
The Court finds respondents GUILTY OF DISHONESTY AND

GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY for misappropriation of funds, tampering
of with official receipts, and failure to comply with the rules on
depositing judiciary funds; DISMISSED from the service with
forfeiture of their benefits, except accrued leave credits.
Judge Garillo, who was already dismissed from the service,

directed to pay the amount he misappropriated and fined
P200,000.00 and forfeited his accrued leave credits. The OCA Legal
Office was diected to file the appropriate criminal charges.
J) APPLYING FOR BAIL REQUIRES COMPLIANCE WITH A PROCEDURE

INTENDED TO PREVENT ABUSES OR IRREGULARITIES FROM BEING
COMMITTED.
12
In the case of Executive Judge Edwin A. Villasor v. Judge Rodolfo R.

Bonifacio, Regional Trial Court, Branch 159, et al., A.M. No. RTJ-05-1907 [Formerly
A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 04-9-510-RTC], December 6, 2006:
FACTS:
On July 22, 2004, at about 4:25 in the afternoon, Atty. Belvis was
approached by City Prosecutor Dennis Pastrana regarding the posting of a
cash bond by a certain Rodolfo “Rudy” Lantano. No Information having
been filed against Lantano, Atty. Belvis gave the prosecution time to file
it. She waited until 4:40 p.m. of that day but as no information was filed,
she instructed Cash Clerk III Edna Samar (Edna) to close the Cashier’s
Office and left.
The next day, July 23, 2004, before 8:00 a.m., she was informed
by Administrative Officer II Teresita Wanason (Teresita) and Edna that 3
sets of official receipts corresponding to Fiduciary Fund, Judiciary
Development Fund, and SAJ Fund were missing. After a fruitless search in
the Cashier’s Office, a call was made to respondent Clerk IV Rosalie San
Juan (Rosalie) to ask her if somebody had posted a cash bond the day
before. Rosalie answered in the affirmative. At around 8:25 a.m. of the
same day Rosalie brought to the cashier 3 sets of receipts and the
P81,200 bond she had received.
According to Rosalie, on or about 6:00 p.m., Thursday, July 22,

2004, while she was resting in Branch 68 after playing badminton, Mr.
Arnel Leynes, Clerk III, office of the Clerk of Court together with a certain
Atty. Art Naciongaling, lawyer of the detained accused approached her to
issue a receipt on a cash bond for the release of the abovementioned
accused but she refused to do so since it was past working hours. After
about 30 minutes, the daughter of the accused came and pleaded that
her father (the accused) is very old and very sick and needs to be brought
to the hospital as soon as possible. Rosalie was so touched and with
compassion, reluctantly entered the Cashier’s Office and took the official
receipts, with the help of her friends, and issued official receipts in
consideration of the cash bond posted and corresponding filing fees paid.
RULING:
The Court adopts the recommendation of the OCA that the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 159:
“xxx finds as patently highly irregular and anomalous the

processing of the application for bail – the receipt of the cash
bond and the issuance of the release order – on 22 July 2004 at
the Pasig City RTC. Applying for bail requires compliance with a
procedure intended to prevent abuses or irregularities from being
committed. A case must be duly filed before the court, properly
docketed thereat and the legal fees paid. If the bail is granted,

Entitled “Report of Executive Judge Edwin A. Villasor, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, on the incident which
transpired on July 22, 2004 at the Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Pasig City.”
13
certain documents and other attachments need to be appended

to the records of the case before an accused may be released
from custody.”
The Court finds respondent Rosalie G. San Juan and Mr. Arnel
D. Leynes, Clerk IV and Clerk III, respectively, at the Pasig City
Regional Trial Court-Office of the Clerk of Court, guilty of SIMPLE
MISCONDUCT for which they are SUSPENDED from office for One (1)
Month and One (1) Day without pay, effective upon receipt of this
Decision, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar
acts shall be dealt with more severely.
III. COURT FUNDS

(1) Fiduciary Fund (FF)
 Statement of Withdrawn and Unwithdrawn Fiduciary Fund3
 Bank Statement, Passbook, Bank-Book Reconciliation Statement
 Deposit and Withdrawal Slips
 Statement of Collections and Withdrawals
 Schedule of Interest Earned4
 Schedule of Confiscated Bonds
 Cashbook
 Inventory of Official Receipts
(2) Sheriff’s Trust Fund (STF)
 Statement of Withdrawn and Unwithdrawn Sheriff Trust Fund, with
Liquidation Column5
 Statement of Estimated Travel Expenses6 with Disbursement Voucher
 Statement of Liquidation7
 Bank Statement, Passbook, Bank-Book Reconciliation Statement
 Deposit and Withdrawal Slips
 Statement of Collections and Withdrawals
 Schedule of Interest Earned
 Cashbook
 Inventory of Official Receipts
(3) Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)
(4) Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJF)
(5) General Fund (GF)
(6) Mediation Fund (MF)
(7) Victim’s Compensation Fund (VCF)
(8) Land Registration Authority (LRA)
(9) Legal Research Fund (LRF)
(10) Notarial Register Fund (NRF)
3
Annex C
4
Annex D
5
Annex E
6
Annex F
7
Annex G
14
BANK ACCOUNT/
BASIS/IMPLEMENTING
# FUNDS EFFECTIVITY WHERE & WHEN TO COMPOSITION
GUIDELINES
SUBMIT REPORTS
1. Judiciary PD No. 1949/ Oct 1, 1984 Accounting Division 1. Allocated fees prescribed in the Rule 141
Development AM No. 35-2004 & FMO, OCA, SC of the Rules of Court;
Fund (JDF) OCA Circular No. 113-2004 2. 10% Service Fee per annum of Interest
th
On the 10 of the Earned on deposits in the Fiduciary Fund.
following month
2. Special RA No. 9227/ Nov 11, 2003 Accounting Division 1. Allocated fees prescribed in the Rule 141
Allowance for AM No. 35-2004 & FMO, OCA, SC of the Rules of Court, as amended;
the Judiciary OCA Circular No. 113-2004 2. Court Fines
th
Fund (SAJF) On the 10 of the
following month
3. General Fund AM No. 35-2004 & Accounting Division 1. Confiscated Bail bonds;
(GF) OCA Circular No. 113-2004 & FMO, OCA, SC 2. Interest Earned on Bail Bond Deposits,
AM No. 05-3-35-SC net of 10% Service Fee per annum.
th
On the 10 of the
following month
4. Mediation Fund OCA Circular No. 51-2011/ Aug 16, 2004 LBP SA No. 3472-1000- 1. Complaint or Answer with mediatable
(MF) OCA Circular No. 58-2007 08 permissive counterclaim or cross claim,
complaint in intervention, third-party
Financial & complaint, forth party complaint, etc. in
Management Office, civil cases, a Petition, an Opposition, and
PHILJA, SC a Creditors Claim in Special Proceedings;
2. Complaint/Information for Offenses with
th
On the 10 of the maximum imposable penalty of prision
following month correcional in its maximum period of six
years imprisonment, except where the
civil liability reserved or is subject of a
separate action
3. Complaint /Information for estafa, theft,
and libel cases, except where the civil
liability is reserved or is subject of a
separate action;
4. Complaint/Information for Quasi-
Offenses under Title 14 of the Revised
Penal Code;
5. Intellectual Property Cases;
6. Commercial or Corporate cases;
7. Environmental Cases.
5. Fiduciary Fund OCA Circular No. 50-95 & From the start VARIOUS 1. Cash Bonds;
(FF) OCA Circular No. 113-2004 of operation Accounting Division 2. Consignations (Rental Deposits; Deposit
FMO, OCA, SC for Expropriations; Redemptioner’s Bond)
3. Supersedeas Bonds;
th
On the 10 of the 4. Cash Deposits in Election Protest
following month (Revisor’s Fee & P25,000 for the cost of
bringing and storing the PCOS & other
machines/election paraphernalia)
5. P1,000 deposits for Sheriff’s/Process
Server’s Fund (if cannot maintain the
required maintaining balance of LBP)
6. Sheriff’s/Process AM No. 35-2004 & Aug 16, 2004 VARIOUS P1,000 deposit to defray the actual travel
Server’s Trust OCA Circular No. 113-2004 Accounting Division expenses of the Sheriff, Process Server or
Fund (STF) FMO, OCA, SC other Court-Authorized Persons in the service
of summons, subpoena and other court
th
On the 10 of the processes.
following month
7. Victim’s RA No. 7309/ Mar 1, 2000 LBP CA No.0592-1022- P5.00 collected for the filing of every
Compensation OCA Circular No. 59-94 & AM 42 complaint or petition initiating ordinary or
Fund (VCF) No. 35-2004 special civil action or special proceeding,
Financial & including civil actions impliedly instituted with
Management Service, criminal actions under Rule 111 of the Revised
DOJ Rule of Criminal Procedure where a filing fee is
likewise collected.
Quarterly Basis
8. Legal Research RA No. 3870, as amended by PD Dec 26, 1982 LBP SA No. 1461-0927- one percent (1%) of the filing fee imposed, but
Fund (LRF) No. 1856/ 36 in no case lower than Twenty Pesos, in the
OCA Circular No. 134-2003 UP Law Center, case of the appellate courts and the additional
Bocobo Hall, Diliman, amount of one percent (1%) of the filing fee
QC 1101 imposed, but in no case lower than Ten Pesos
in the case of all other courts, including all
Quarterly Basis administrative or special courts, as well as
agencies or tribunals exercising quasi-judicial
functions and those enumerated in Letter of
15
Instructions No. 1182, issued on December 16,

1981, shall be collected by their respective
clerks of court, or equivalent functionary, for
each action or special proceeding filed
therewith and for which the fees prescribed in
the Rules of Court or in any statute or
regulation as due and payable. For this
purpose, "special proceeding" shall include
any petition or application, paper or document
seeking official action to establish a status, a
right, privilege or particular fact or command
the performance of a duty.
9. Land PD No. 1529/ Feb 1, 2003 LBP SA No. 0012-2223- Fees payable to the Commissioner of Land
Registration OCA Circular No. 24-2003 86 Registration.
Authority
(CADASTRAL Chief Accountant, Land
FUND) Registration Authority
Quarterly Basis
10. Notarial AM No. 02-8-13-SC/ Nov 16, 2006 LBP SA No. 3472-1000- Price of Notarial Register Book ordered from
Register Fund OCA Circular No. 157-2006 32 the Supreme Court.
(NRF) Accounting Division
FMO, OCA, SC
th
On the 10 of the
following month
MEDIATION FUND (MF)
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 44-2012 dated May 28, 2012, clarified the reiteration made
in OCA Circular No. 14-2012 dated March 1, 2012. OCA Circular No. 14-2012 reiterated
the Provisions I [Paragraph A (1)] and II [Paragraphs 4 and 5] of OCA Circular No. 58-
2007, and Restatement of Provision I, Paragraph A (1) thereof, providing, among others,
that the Clerks of Court, Officers-In-Charge, or their duly authorized officers shall
deposit daily the collections accruing to the Fund with the SC PHILJA PMC Trust Fund
(Rule 141) LBP Savings Account No. 3472-1000-08 [MEDIATION FUND].
The letter (b) provision of OCA Circular No. 14-2012, which stated another LBP
account of the Mediation Fund, should be disregarded since it was already closed and
inoperative account.
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 51-2011, dated April 6, 2011, A.M. No. 11-1-6-SC PHILJA,
dated January 11, 2011:
1. Complaint or Answer with mediatable permissive counterclaim or cross claim,
complaint in intervention, third-party complaint, forth party complaint, etc. in civil
cases, a Petition, an Opposition, and a Creditors Claim in Special Proceedings;
2. Complaint/Information for Offenses with maximum imposable penalty of prision
correcional in its maximum period of six years imprisonment, except where the civil
liability reserved or is subject of a separate action
3. Complaint /Information for estafa, theft, and libel cases, except where the civil
liability is reserved or is subject of a separate action;
4. Complaint/Information for Quasi-Offenses under Title 14 of the Revised Penal Code;
5. Intelectual Property Cases;
6. Commercial or Corporate cases;
7. Environmental Cases
THE FOLLOWING CASES SHALL NOT BE REFERRED TO MEDIATION:

16
1. Civil cases which by law cannot be compromised (Article 2035, New Civil
Code);
Art. 2035. No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid:
(1) The civil status of persons;
(2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
(3) Any ground for legal separation;
(4) Future support;
(5) The jurisdiction of courts;
(6) Future legitime. (1814a)
However, in cases covered under 1, 4 and 5 where the parties inform
the court that they have agreed to undergo mediation on some aspects
thereof, e.g., custody of minor children, separation of property, or support
pendente lite, the court shall refer them to mediation.
2. Other criminal cases not covered hereunder shall not be referred to
mediation:
a) The civil aspect of Quasi-Offenses under Title 14 of the RPC (Arising from
Criminal Negligence);
b) The civil aspect of less grave felonies punishable by correctional penalties
not exceeding 6 years imprisonment, where the offended party is a
private person;
c) The civil aspect of estafa, theft and libel.
d) All civil and criminal cases filed with a certificate to file action issued by
the Punong Barangay or Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo under the Revised
Katarungang Pambarangay Law;
e) Habeas Corpus petitions;
f) All cases under RA No. 9262 (Violence against Women and Children); and
g) Cases with pending application for Restraining Orders/Preliminary
Injunctions.
SHERIFF’S/PROCESS SERVER’S FUND
Under Paragraph 2, Sec. 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended, the
Sheriff’s/Process Server’s Fund shall comprise of the amount of One Thousand
(P1,000.00) Pesos to be deposited with the clerk of court upon filing of the complaint to
defray the actual travel expenses of the Sheriff, Process Server or Other Court-
Authorized Persons in the service of summons, subpoena and other court processes that
would be issued relative to the trial of the case. In case the initial deposit of One
Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos is not sufficient, then the plaintiff or petitioner shall be
required to make an additional deposit.
PROCEDURES ON HOW TO WITHDRAW THE SHERIFF’S/PROCESS SERVER’S FUND

AND TO LIQUIDATE THE SAME AS CASH ADVANCE:
1. The Sheriff, Process Server, or Other Court Authorized Person shall submit to
the court for its approval a Statement of the Estimated Travel Expenses for
service of summons and court processes;
2. Once approved, the Clerk of Court shall release the money to said Sheriff,
Process Server, or Other Court Authorized Person;
17
3. After service, a Statement of Liquidation shall be submitted to the court for

approval.
4. After rendition of judgment by the court, any excess from the deposit shall
be returned to the party who made the deposit.
Guidelines on how to disburse the cash advance and liquidate the same are
prescribed under Paragraph VI, Specific Guidelines on Local Travel, Administrative
Circular No. 15-20058, dated March 22, 2005, which provides that:
XXX
“2. The amount of transportation expenses allowable shall be the

actual fare at the prevailing rates of the ordinary means of
transportation by land, sea and air from the permanent official
station to the destination or place of work or assignment in the
field and back to the permanent official station. It includes
transportation and porterage from the office or residence of the
official or employee whichever is economical to the point of
embarkation and from the point of debarkation to the office or
temporary residence in the place of assignment in the field and
from the office or temporary residence in the place of assignment
in the field to the point of embarkation and from the point of
debarkation to office or residence. It shall exclude local
transportation and other expenses upon arrival in the office or
temporary residence in the place of assignment in the field which
are covered by the travel expense. Taxi fare, if necessary, shall
not exceed One Hundred Pesos (P100.00).
3. To ensure that government funds and property are used only for
official purposes, no reimbursement of the cost of gasoline and oil
shall be allowed if and when a private vehicle is used by the
traveling official or employee. In such circumstance, the official or
employee shall be entitled only to the reimbursement of the
equivalent cost of the customary mode of transportation. Under
no circumstances shall fuel be issued to privately-owned motor
vehicles.
4. Officials and employees who use government vehicle shall not be

entitled to transportation expense.
5. Hiring of private vehicles shall be allowed only if the claim is

justified in an affidavit executed by the claimant, and its
reasonableness duly certified by the xxx Presiding Judge, the
Executive Judge xxx
Xxx
7. Travel Within Fifty-Kilometer Radius
7.1. xxx
c. Process servers and liaison officers who are allowed to use

official vehicles by the nature of their job are entitled to
meal allowance only. If they do not use official vehicles,
they shall be entitled to reimbursement of actual and
8
Annex U
18
reasonable transportation expenses, aside from meal

allowance. In both instances, they are entitled to said
meal allowance only if they are out of their official station
for one (1) full day.
xxx
d. xxx
Process servers, liaison officers and canvassers or

purchasers shall no longer be entitled to a monthly
expense allowance.
xxx
f. Personnel who take a taxicab may be entitled to

reimbursement of actual taxi fare only after his/her
supervisor shall have justified in writing the necessity of
the use of such mode of transportation.
7.2. When the official travel or assignment is to places within the

fifty (50) kilometer-radius xxx. , or the city or municipality
wherein their permanent official station is located in the case
of those outside the metropolitan manila area and the
amount of travel expenses being claimed includes the hotel
room or lodging rate, the following shall be required:
7.2.1 Written justification for staying beyond one (1) full

day.
7.2.2 Submission of the hotel room or lodging bills or

invoices with official receipts to prove that they stayed
in the place of destination or assignment and are not
commuting daily from the place of assignment to the
place of their residence or permanent official station.”
If the travel is beyond fifty-kilometer radius, Administrative Circular No.

51-20109, July 7, 2010 shall apply, which provides that:
" 1. The local travel expenses of officials and employees, regardless of rank
and destination, shall be in the amount of One Thousand Five Hundred
Pesos (P1,500.00) per day, divided into three (3) components:
Particulars Percentage Amount
Hotel and Lodging 50% P 750.00
Cost of meal at P150.00 per meal 30% 450.00
Incidental Expenses 20% 300.00
TOTAL 100% P1,500.00
2. Full travel expense shall be allowed only in case of absence from the
permanent official station for one (1) full day or more.
Particulars Cost of Meal Incidental Hotel or Total

Expenses Lodging
Departure from permanent
P450.00 P300.00 P750.00 P1,500.00
station before 12:00 nn
9
Annex V
19
Departure from permanent

150.00 300.00 750.00 1,200.00
station after 12:00 nn.
Arrival at permanent station
150.00 300.00 -o- 450.00
before 12:00 nn
Arrival at permanent station
300.00 300.00 -o- 600.00
after 12:00 nn
3. The aforementioned travel allowance shall no longer require submission

of official receipts during liquidation;
xxx
IV. MONTHLY REPORTS OF COLLECTIONS, DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS
CIRCULAR NO. 113-200410, dated September 16, 2004, revoking Circular No.
44-2000, the OCA established the following guidelines and procedures for purposes
of uniformity in the submission of Monthly Reports of Collections and Deposits, to
wit:
1. The Monthly Reports of Collections and Deposits for the Judiciary Development
Fund (JDF), Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF) and Fiduciary Fund
(FF) shall be:
1.1. Certified correct by the Clerk of Court
1.2. Duly subscribed and sworn to before the Executive/Presiding Judge
1.3. Sent not later than the 10th day of each succeeding month to –
The Chief Accountant
Accounting Division
Financial Management Office
Office of the Court Administrator
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Taft Avenue, Ermita
Manila
2. The following documents shall be attached to the reports:
A. For Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)
a. Duplicate copies of the official receipts issued
b. Machine validated deposit slips, if collections are remitted/deposited
with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), or Postal Money Order
(PMO), if collections are remitted through PMO
B. For Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF)
b. Machine validated deposit slips, if collections are remitted/deposited
with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), or Postal Money Order
(PMO), if collections are remitted through PMO
C. For Fiduciary Fund (FF)
10
Annex AA
20
b. Machine validated deposit slips, if collections are deposited with the LBP,
or certified true copies of the official receipts issued by the
Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer, if collections are deposited with the
Treasurer’s Office
c. In case of withdrawal:
c.1. Copy of the Court Order
c.2. Original Official Receipt (OR) or certified true copy of OR
c.3. Duplicate or certified true copy of withdrawal slip and disbursement
voucher if collections are deposited in a savings account with the
LBP, or a copy of the check and disbursement voucher if collections
are deposited in a current account with the LBP, or disbursement
voucher, if colletions are deposited with the PTO/CTO/MTO
c.4. Copy of the acknowledgement receipt
3. In case of no transaction is made within the month, written notice thereof shall
be submitted to the aforesaid Office not later than the 10 th day of succeeding
month.
REMINDERS:
 Individual Monthly Financial Reports should be submitted even though
deposits for STF is incorporated with the FF.
 Failure to submit will tantamount to withholding of Salaries by the
Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator.
 Land Bank of the Philippines is our depositary bank pursuant to
Administrative Circular No. 5-93 dated April 30, 1993, which amended
Administrative Circular No. 5 dated February 21, 1985.
 The proper way to handle court funds is to segregate the duties of OR
issuance, preparation of monthly reports and maintaining of cashbooks.
 The Unwithdrawn Fiduciary Fund and the Unwithdrawn Sheriff’s Trust Fund
must be equal to your Cash Items, i.e. Cash in Bank, Other Cash Items like
Checks.
 Observe the guidelines in Proper Handling and Use of Official Receipts
pursuant to OCA Circular No. 22-94 dated April 8, 1994.
.
PROPER HANDLING AND USE OF OFFICIAL RECEIPTS:
CIRCULAR NO. 22-9411, April 8, 1994, GUIDELINES IN THE PROPER
HANDLING AND USE OF OFFICIAL RECEIPTS, to achieve uniformity and
consistency in the observance of audit procedures and for proper accounting
and control of collections, the Office of the Court Administrator prescribes
the following guidelines:
1) The Official Receipts issued by the Supreme Court to all lower courts shall
be used only for collections that will accrue to the National Government;
2) In issuing official receipts, one must consume one (1) booklet at a time
and must use a separate booklet for each fund account, that is, separate
booklet for JDF, FF,STF, GF, etc.;
3) Official Receipts shall be issued in strict numerical sequence;
11
Annex AB
21
4) In filling-up receipts, the original copy will have to be written in hard

indelible pencil or ballpen and the duplicate and triplicate copies will be
carbon reproductions in all respects of whatever may have been written
on the original. However, carbon paper must not be over-used to the
extent that what is written on the duplicate, much more on the triplicate,
cannot be read;
5) Preparation of official receipts may be entrusted to subordinates but the
official receipts issued must be signed by the Clerks of Court/Accountable
Officers;
6) In cases wherein cancellation of official receipts becomes inevitable, the
Clerk of Court of the duly authorized representative must present to the
Provincial/City/Municipal Auditor the spoiled and cancelled receipt/s for
inspection. Under no circumstances shall destruction of accountable
forms be allowed;
7) In cases of loss of official receipts, the Clerk of Court or the duly
authorized representative must immediately report the incident to the
Provincial/City/Municipal Auditor and then file an application for relief,if
the circumstances warrants;
8) Official Receipts issued must be properly recorded in their respective
book of accounts for accounting and control purposes;
9) Official Receipts must be kept in safe custody. The COC, as a person
directly responsible for all court collection, must take all reasonable steps
to minimize the risk of losses, defalcations and other types of
irregularities.
V. RULE 141 OF THE RULES OF COURT, as amended (Amended Administrative Circular No.
35-200412)
A. Brief History
PARTICULARS DATE OF EFFECTIVITY REMARKS

Administrative Circular November 2, 1990 a) The applicable funds are JDF & GF;
No. 31-90 b) Up to Section 19;
c) No Provisions for MF, VCF & Estafa
Cases yet.
Administrative Circular June 28, 1994 Amendments to Sec. 7 (a) and (d)
No. 11-94 and Sec 8 (a) and (b); rates increased.
Administrative Circular August 1, 1995 Guidelines for Allocating the Legal
No. 15-95 Fees prescribed in Administrative Circular
No. 11-94.
Administrative Circular March 1, 2000 a) The applicable funds are JDF & GF;
No. 3-2000 b) Section for Victim’s Compensation
(A.M. No. 99-8-01-SC & Fund was included; and
A.M. No. 00-2-01-SC) c) Additional Section for “Other Fees”,
such as estafa, motions, etc., was
also included.
12
Annex I
22
Administrative Circular August 20, 2004 a) Funds applicable are JDF& SAFF (GF
No. 35-2004 was changed to SAJF);
(A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC) (Aug. 16, 2004) b) Filing Fees were increased.
c) Provisions for Mediation Fund was
added (Section 9).
B. Overview
APPELLATE 2ND LEVEL

1ST LEVEL
COURTS COURTS
SECTION PARTICULARS COURTS
(SC, CA, SB (MeTC, MTCC,
(RTC)
& CTA) MTC, MCTC)
1–3 General Provisions √ √ √
4 Graduated Rates √
5 Fees paid by Advancing Party √
6 Fees of Bar Candidates √
9 – 20 General Provisions √ √ √
21 Others Fees √ √
22 Government Exempt √ √ √
C. SUSPENDED PROVISIONS:
Court En Banc Resolution Dated September 21, 200413, which

suspend the new rates of the legal fees under Rule 141, effective
immediately, viz:
a) Solemnization of Marriage – suspends Sec. 7(h) & Sec. 8(g) of the
Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004; Php300.00 should be
collected pursuant to Sec. 7(h) & Sec. 8(e) Administrative Circular No.
3-2000;
b) Motions – suspends Sec. 21(b) of Amended Administrative Circular
No. 35-2004; only Sec. 20(b) of the Administrative Circular No. 3-2000
shall be in effect, Php100 for the first postponement, PLUS P50.00 for
every postponement thereafter (P100.00, P150.00, P200.00, so on &
so forth; to be remitted to JDF only, per OCA Circ. No. 130-2006);
c) Compulsory Counterclaims – suspends Sec. 7(a) of Amended
Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 for fees on compulsory
counterclaim; hence, no fees shall be collected for compulsory
counterclaim.
13
Annex J
23
NO DOCKET FEE FOR COMPULSORY COUNTERCLAIM.

It has reached the attention of the OCA that some courts are
collecting docket fees for compulsory counterclaims based apparently
on a portion of the decision in Korea Technologies Co. Ltd vs. Alberto
A. Lerma, etc., et al., G.R. No. 143581, came up on January 7, 2008,
which stated that:
“On July 17, 1998, at the time PGSM filed its answer
incorporating its counterclaims against KOGIES, it was not
liable to pay filing fee for said counterclaims being compulsory
in nature. We stress, however, that effective August 16, 2004
under Sec. 7 Rule 141, as amended by A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC,
docket fees are now required to be paid in compulsory
counterclaims or cross-claims.”
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 96-200914, dated August 13, 2009, clarifies

that the second sentence of the quoted portion of the decision more
specifically that in bold font, has been deleted in a revised issuance.
The OCA cited the Resolution of this Court in A.M. No. 01-2-04-SC
dated September 21, 2004 suspending payment of filing fees for
compulsory counterclaims remains in effect.
D. MANNER OF PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES:
D.1. ASIDE FROM CASH, DOCKET FILING FEES CAN ALSO BE PAID IN
CASHIER’S CHECK OR MANAGER’S CHECK; WHILE GOCCs CAN USE
THEIR COMPANY CHECK, AS THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM SAID
REQUIREMENT.
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 19-200715, dated February 21, 2007, pursuant to

the guidelines issued by the Court in Administrative Circular No. 35-2004
dated August 14, 2004, that docket/filing fees in conformity with Rule 141 of
the Rules of Court must be paid in the form of:
(a) Cash
(b) Cashier’s Check
(c) Manager’s Check
That the government offices and other government-owned and

controlled corporations (GOCCs) are exempt from said requirement and they
can pay thru company check provided however that the check must be
signed by the duly authorized signatories of the concerned agencies.
D.2 DOCKET FILING FEES CAN BE PAID BY PERSONAL, COMPANY OR

MANAGER’S CHECK IN PILOT COURTS.
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 88-200716, dated September 14, 2007, these

guidelines were implemented to amend Sec. 1 of the Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court for those pilot courts:
(1) Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals
14
Annex K
15
Annex M
16
Annex N
24
(2) 1st & 2nd Level Courts in the National Capital Regions
(3) Cebu City
(4) Mandaue City; and
(5) Lapu-Lapu City
Modes of Payment:
(a) Cash Payment:
(1) Fee accruing to LRF, VCF, MF, & LRA.
(2) Php1,000.00 for STF
(3) Fees accruing to JDF or SAJF exceeding Php5,000.00
(b) Check Payment – fees accruing to JDF & SAJF exceeding Php5,000.00
Check payments may be in the form of personal, company or manager’s
check, provided that, if the amount exceeds Fifty Thousand Pesos
(Php50,000.00), it shall be paid in manager’s check.
RULE IF PAYMENT IS MADE IN CHECK:

(b.1) in conformity with OCA CIRCULAR NO. 19-2007, i.e. the check
is dated, with complete signatures and amount in words
should tally with the amount in figures;
(b.2) it must be crossed;
(b.3) payable to the “SUPREME COURT, JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT
FUND ACCOUNT” or to the “SUPREME COURT, SPECIAL
ALLOWANCE FOR THE JUDICIARY FUND ACCOUNT”; and
(b.4) official receipts issued for payment by check shall be stamped
“PAYMENT CREDITED ONLY UPON CHECK BEING CLEARED”;
(b.5) when check is dishonored, the assigned court shall forthwith
issue an order dismissing the case within twenty-four (24)
hours from receipt of notice from the COC who was notified
by the FMBO, SC about the notice of dishonour which they
receive from the bank;
(b.6) the COC shall accomplish a Monthly Report of Dismissed Cases

due to Dishonoured Checks using Form LF-1 to be submitted
to the Accounting Division, Financial Management Office, OCA
within ten (10) days after the end of each month.
E. SECTION 7, RULE 141, RULES OF COURT:
ORDINARY CIVIL SPECIAL CIVIL SPECIAL NOT AN

SEC. RATES NOTES
ACTIONS ACTIONS PROCEEDINGS ACTION
Graduated Damage Suit, Sum of
7(a)
Rates Money, etc
All Other Actions not Interpleader
Involving Property Declaratory Relief
- Relief from Certiorari,
Judgement Prohibition and
7(b) P2,000.00 - Annulment/ Mandamus
Recission of Quo Warranto
Contract Beyond pecuniary
- Revival of estimation
Judgment, etc.
25
Graduated Extra-Judicial
7(c )
Rates Foreclosure
Allowance of
Wills
Granting Letters
of
Graduated
7(d) Administratio
Rates
n
Appointment of
Guardians/Tru
stees, etc.
Naturalization
7(e) P10,000.00 Acquiring
Citizenship
Adoption If the
(P2,000/P10,0 proceeding
00) s involve
Support (P500) separation
Annulment of of
Marriage/ property,
Declaration of an
Nullity/ Legal additional
Separation fee
(P3,000) correspond
Custody of ing to the
Minors value of the
(P1,000) of the
Various property,
7(f)
rates an
additional
fee
correspond
ing to the
value of the
property
involved
shall be
collected,
in
accordance
with Sec
7(d).
Writ of Habeas
Corpus
Rescission/
Revocation of
Adoption
Termination of
7(g) P500.00
Guardianship
Change of Name
Cancellation/
Correction of
Entries in the
Civil Registry
Solemnization New
rates were
suspended,
OCA Cir.
No. 96-
2009,
7(h) P300.00
including
Motions &
Compulsor
y
counterclai
ms
Commission Notary
7(i) P2,000.00
fee Public
Certifying
copies of
any paper,
7(j) P10/page
record,
decree,
judgment
26
Court’s Commis
Commissio sion on all
n money,
excluding
2% x cashbond
P4,000 coming into
7(k)
1.5% x the clerk’s
>P4K hands by
law, rule,
order or
writ of
court
7(l) P3,000.00 Appeals
Issuance of Whethe
Provisional r asked
Remedies thru
7(m) P500.00 motion or
included in
the
pleading
Clearance/
7(n) P50.00 Certificatio
n
Notary Services
7(o) P200.00 Charge of Notary
Public
Other Any
services other
services
7(p) P200.00
not
provided in
this section
F. SECTION 8, RULE 141, RULES OF COURT:
27
G. SEC. 11. Stenographers.–
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 158-2011, was issued in relation to A.M. No. P-09-266
(Anonymous Complaint vs. Gertrudes F. Felitro, et. Al., all stenographers, RTC, Las
Piñas City) to remind all courts on the strict compliance with this provision:
“Stenographers shall give certified transcript of notes taken by them to every

person requesting the same upon payment to the Clerk of Court of (a) TEN (P10.00)
PESOS for each page of not less than two hundred and fifty words before the appeal
is taken and (b) FIVE (P5.00) PESOS for the same page, after the filing of the appeal,
provided, however, that one-third (1/3) of the total charges shall accrue to the
Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and the remaining two-thirds (2/3) to the
stenographer concerned. (10a)”
H. SEC. 12. Notaries.– No notary public shall charge or receive for any service rendered
by him any fee, remuneration or compensation in excess of those expressly
prescribed in the following schedule:
(a) For protests of drafts, bills of exchange, or promissory notes for non-acceptance
or non-payment, and for notice thereof, ONE HUNDRED (P100.00) PESOS;
(b) For the registration of such protest and filing or safekeeping of the same, ONE
HUNDRED (P100.00) PESOS;
(c) For authenticating powers of attorney, ONE HUNDRED (P100.00) PESOS;
(d) For sworn statement concerning correctness of any account or other document,
ONE HUNDRED (P100.00) PESOS;
(e) For each oath of affirmation, ONE HUNDRED (P100.00) PESOS;
28
(f) For receiving evidence of indebtedness to be sent outside, ONE HUNDRED

(P100.00) PESOS;
(g) For issuing a certified copy of all or part of his notarial register or notarial records,
for each page, ONE HUNDRED (P100.00) PESOS;
(h) For taking depositions, for each page, ONE HUNDRED (P100.00) PESOS; and
(i) For acknowledging other documents not enumerated in this section, ONE
HUNDRED (P100.00) PESOS. (11a)
I. Sec. 21. Other Fees
Sec. 21 (a) - In estafa cases where the offended party fails to manifest within fifteen
(15) days following the filing of the information that the civil liability arising from the
crime has been or would be separately prosecuted, OR IN VIOLATIONS OF BP NO. 22
xxx
RULES AND GUIDELINES IN THE FILING, COLLECTION OF FEES AND PROSECUTION

OF BP Blg. 22
Per OCA Circular No. 57-97, as amended by OCA Circular No. 70-97 and 141-
2003:
GENERAL RULES AND GUIDELINES IN THE FILING AND PROSECUTION OF BP 22:
a) The criminal action for violation of BP 22 shall be deemed to necessarily

include the corresponding civil action, and reservation to file such civil action
separately shall be allowed or recognized. (Par. 1, OCA Circ. No. 57-97)
b) Upon the filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended
party shall pay in full the filing fees based upon the amount of the check
involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed.
c) Where the offended party further seeks to enforce against the accused civil
liability by way of liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary
damages, he shall pay the corresponding filing fees therefore based on the
amounts thereof as alleged either in his complaint or in the information.
(Actual Damages not included, i.e. the amount of the check)
d) If not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the
court, the amount of such fees shall constitute a first lien on the judgment.
e) Where the civil action has heretofore been filed separately and trial thereof
has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action
upon application with the court trying the latter case.
f) If the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in

accordance with the pertinent procedure outlined in Section 2(a) of Rule 111
governing the proceedings in the actions as thus consolidated. (Par. 1-3, OCA
Circ. No. 57-97)
PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES IN THE COLLECTION OF THE FILING FEES:
a) The OCC shall receive the information filed by the Office of the Chief State
Prosecutor or the Provincial/City Prosecution Office;
b) Upon receipt, the information shall be entered in a separate record book and
assigned an undocketed number (UDK No.) consisting of (a) the Investigation
29
Slip No. (I.S. No.) appearing on the said information for easy identification;
and (b) a number, starting with No. 1 (Example: UDK No. 6789-1);
c) Thereafter, the Clerk of Court shall, the Clerk of Court shall, by form letter17
(form provided), notify and advise the complainant of (a) the filing of the
information; and (b) the requirement as to the payment in full of the filing
fees under Circular 57-97 (previously referring to Section 8(a) and Section
7(a), now Section 21(a)) based upon the computation stated therein;
d) The State Prosecutor, the Provincial/Assistant Provincial Prosecutor or the

City/Assistant City Prosecutor who filed the information and the respondent
shall be furnished with copies of the accomplished form letter sent by the
COC. (Par. 1-2, OCA Circ. No. 70-97)
e) The complainant shall have a period of ten (10) days from receipt of the
letter within which to pay the filing fees.
f) Should the complainant fail to pay the filing fees within the ten (10)-day
period stated herein, the case folder shall be archived.
g) After the lapse of two (2) months, [deleted provision: “the records may be
disposed of.”] the case folder shall be forwarded to the Executive Judge
(multiple sala stations) or Presiding Judge (single sala stations) who shall
dismiss the case on the ground of non-payment of filing fees pursuant to
Circular No. 57-97 dated 16 September 1997;
h) Thereafter, the COC shall return the case folder to the Office of the
Prosecutor. (OCA Circ. No. 141-2003, September 30, 2003)
i) However, upon receipt of the filing fees, the information shall be entered in
the court’s general docket book and assigned the court case number;
j) Thereafter, the COC shall cause the inclusion of the case in the raffle of cases.
k) FOR BP 22 CASES FILED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVITY DATE OF A.M. No. 35-
2004 (August 16, 2004), in the event that the amount of the actual damages
claimed exceeds the maximum amount of P200,000.00, the filing fees to be
collected in excess of the aforementioned amount shall be in accordance
with the provisions of Section 7(a), of the administrative circular in effect.
(Par. 4-5, OCA Circ. No. 70-97)
J. Sec. 21(c). Bond Fee
For all types of bonds (cash, surety and property) in criminal and civil cases, FIVE
HUNDRED (P500.00) PESOS per each bond;
JDF = P300.00
SAJF = P200.00
K. Sec 21(e). FOR RECEPTION OF EVIDENCE BY THE CLERK OF COURT, FIVE HUNDRED
(P500.00) PESOS
OCA CIRCULAR No 50-2001, dated 17 August 2001, prohibits collection of

compensation for services rendered as commissioners in ex-parte proceedings.
L. Sec. 21(h). Names of Voters Inclusion/Exclusion Fee:
17
Annex AC
30
For petitions for inclusion, exclusion or correction of names of voters, one

hundred (p100.00) pesos;
FILING FEE=PER VOTER X P100.00
VI. EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES
(1) Indigent litigants (a) whose gross income and that their immediate family do not
exceed an amount double the monthly minimum wage of an employee, and (b) who
do not own real property with fair market value as stated in the current tax
declaration of more than Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos shall be
exempt from the payment of legal fees. (Sec. 19, A.M. No. 35-2004).
(2) Republic of the Philippines, its agencies and instrumentalities. (Sec. 22, A.M. No. 35-
2004).
(3) The Provincial, City or Municipal Treasurer or assessor, provided however, that all
court actions, criminal or civil, are instituted at their instance. (Sec. 280 of the Local
Government Code of 1991).
(4) Tenant-Farmer, agricultural lessee or tiller, settler or amortizing owner-cultivator.
(PD No. 946, Sec. 16).
(5) Indigent Clients of the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). (OCA Circular No. 121-200718,
Dec. 11, 2007, revoking the conditions imposed in OCA Circular No. 67-2007).
(6) Clients of the National Committee on Legal Aid (NCLA) and of Legal Aide Offices in
the Local Chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). (OCA Circular No.
137-200919).
(7) Dangerous Drug Board relative to Petitions for Voluntary Confinement under Article
VIII , Section 54 of Republic Act 9165. (Resolution of the Court En Banc dated March
2, 2010, A.M. No. 10-2-03-020).
Further , OCA Circular No. 95-200721 reminded and directed all Judges and
Clerks of Court of the RTC to strictly comply with Paragraph 3 of Section 87, Article X
of the Republic Act No. 9165, which quoted hereunder as follows:
“Sec. 87. Appropriations. – xxx
The fines shall be remitted to the Board by the court
imposing such fines within thirty (30) days from the finality of its
decisions or orders.xxx”
(8) Person/s filing a Petition for Writ of Amparo. (A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC).
COOPERATIVES ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM THE PAYMENT OF LEGAL FEES

PROVIDED FOR UNDER RULE 141 OF THE RULES OF COURT.
18
Annex O
19
Annex Q
20
Annex R
21
Annex S
31
OCA Circular No. 42-2012 dated May 7, 2012, mandated the implementation of
the decision of the Court in A.M. No. 12-2-03-0, RE: IN THE MATTER OF CLARIFICATION
OF EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF ALL COURT AND SHERIFF’S FEES OF COOPERATIVES
DULY REGISTERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9520 OTHERWISE KNOWN
AS THE PHILIPPINE COOPERATIVE CODE OF 2008, PERPETUAL HELP COMMUNITY
COOPERATIVE (PHCCI), dated 13 March 2012, penned by Associate Justice Jose P. Perez,
where the Court ruled that:
xxx
“In a decision dated 26 February 2010 in Baguio Market Vendors
Multi-Purpose Cooperative (BAMARVEMPCO) v. Cabato-Cortes, this Court
reiterated its ruling in the GSIS case when it denied the petition of the
cooperative to be exempted from the payment of legal fees under Section
7(c) of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court relative to fees in petitions for extra-
judicial foreclosure.
On 10 March 2010, relying again on the GSIS ruling, the Court En
Banc issued a resolution clarifying that the National Power Corporation is
not exempt from the payment of legal fees.
With the foregoing categorical pronouncements of the Supreme
Court, it is evident that the exemption of cooperatives from payment of
court and sheriff’s fees no longer stands. Cooperatives can no longer
invoke Republic Act No. 6938, as amended by Republic Act No. 9520, as
basis for exemption from the payment of legal fees.
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises, the petition of
PHCCI requesting for this Court to issue an order clarifying and
implementing the exemption of cooperatives from the payment of court
and sheriff’s fees is hereby DENIED.
The Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to issue a
circular clarifying that cooperatives are not exempt from the payment of
the legal fees provided for under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.“
VII. Php1,000.00 REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 and 3 OF SEC. 10 OF THE AMENDED

ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 35-2004 MUST BE COLLECTED.
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 135-200922, dated October 1, 2009, in a resolution of the

Supreme Court En Banc dated September 1, 2009 in A.M. No. 03-4-01-0, the Court
qualify the distinction between the terms sheriff’s expenses (as found in second
paragraph of Section 10); that the amount required to defray the sheriff’s expenses
is clearly not covered by the exemption; they are neither considered as court and
sheriff’s fees nor amounts payable to the Philippine Government. For strict
compliance of all concerned, the dispositive portion of the resolution is hereunder
stated:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, we rule that the REMPCO Multi-

Purpose Cooperative is NOT EXEMPT from the deposit/payment of
sheriff’s expenses under Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court in
collection actions filed with the Small Claims Court of Makati City.”
22
Annex T
32
VIII. ASSESSMENT AND COMPUTATION OF DOCKET FEES
A. OCA CIRCULAR 26-9723, dated May 5, 1997, mandates to:
1. compel the collecting officials to strictly comply with the provisions of the
Auditing and Accounting Manual, Art. VI, Sec. 61 and 113; and
2. cause the attachment of Legal Fees Form to the record of the case in lieu
of official receipts (see attached form).
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

RTC/SDC/METC/MTCC/MTC/MCTC/SCC
LEGAL FEES FORM
CASE NO. _____________
RECEIVED this ________ day of _____________, 19___ the following

payments:
1. General Fund
a. Clerk of Court
General Fund P________________ O.R. No.____________
b. Sheriff’s General
Fund P________________ O.R. No.____________
2. Judiciary Development
Fund P________________ O.R. No.____________
3. Fiduciary Fund P________________ O.R. No.____________
4. Sheriff’s Trust Fund P________________ O.R. No.____________
5. Legal Research Fund
Fee P________________ O.R. No.____________
6. Land Registration Fee P________________ O.R. No.____________
7. Victims Compensation
Fee P________________ O.R. No.____________
Total: ______________________
Paid By: Received By:

______________________ ___________________
(Note:______________________________________________)
B. COMPUTATION:
23
Annex H
33
Problem No. 1
X filed a complaint for Sum of Money against Y. Given the
information below, compute the fees and other charges X need to pay:
Particulars 1st Level Courts 2nd Level Courts
Total claims, plus damages P 190,000.00 P 500,000.00
Summon to serve 1 1
ANSWER TO PROBLEM No. 1:

1.a. For 1st Level Courts:

Municipal Trial Court - ____________________
LEGAL FEES FORM
CASE NO. 11-00001
RECEIVED this ___5th day of ___July____, 2011 the following

payments:
1. SAJF P 1,751.40 O.R. No. 0000101

2. JDF 949.60 O.R. No. 0000201
3. GF - O.R. No. _______
4. FF - O.R. No. _______
5. STF 1,000.00 O.R. No. 0000301
6. MF 500.00 O.R. No. 0000401
7. LRF 27.00 * O.R. No. 1111111
8. VCF 5.00 O.R. No. 2222221
Total Docket Fees: P 4,232.00

__________________ ___________________
(Note:______________________________________________)
Particulars TOTAL Fees For SAJF For JDF

Total claims, plus damages – Sec. 8(a) P 2,500.00 P 1,607.00 P 893.00
Summon to serve – Sec. 10(a) 200.00 144.00 56.00
Total Filing fee P 2,700.00 P 1,751.00 P 949.00
*LRF COMPUTATION:
Particulars Amount
Total Filing Fee P 2,700.00
MULTIPLY: LRF rate (1%) 0.01
LRF fee P 27.00
1.b. For 2nd Level Courts:
34

Regional Trial Court - _____________________
LEGAL FEES FORM
CASE NO. 11-00001

payments:
1. SAJF P 3,994.00 O.R. No. 0000101

2. JDF 2,706.00 O.R. No. 0000201
3. GF - O.R. No. _______
4. FF - O.R. No. _______
5. STF 1,000.00 O.R. No. 0000301
6. MF 500.00 O.R. No. 0000401
7. LRF 67.00 * O.R. No. 1111111
8. VCF 5.00 O.R. No. 2222221

__________________ ___________________
(Note:______________________________________________)

Total claims, + damages – Sec. 7(a)** P 6,500.00 P 3,850.00 P 2,650.00
Total Filing Fee P 6,700.00 P 3,994.00 P 2,706.00
**Total claims, damages – Sec. 7(a) TOTAL Fees For SAJF For JDF
Not more than P400,000.00 P 4,500.00 P2,650.00 P1,850.00
For each P1,000.00 in excess of
P400,000.00 ((100k/1k)x20)=P2,000.00;
[ratio: 12:20, for SAJ & 8:20 for JDF] 2,000.00 1,200.00 800.00
Total P 6,500.00 P 3,850.00 P 2,650.00
*LRF COMPUTATION:
Particulars Amount
LRF Fee P 67.00
PROBLEM NO. 2
35
Compute the total fees & other charges due from NPC, if any using
the information below:
FOR 1st Level Courts FOR 2nd Level Courts
The National Power The National Power

Corporation filed a Forcible Entry Case Corporation filed a collection suit
against Sps. Dela Cruz with damages. against Meralco in the RTC. The
The damages prayed for totalled to prayer of the complaint shows a
P550,000.00. total claims of P4,000,000.00.
ANSWER TO PROBLEM No. 2:

2.a. For 1st Level Courts:

Municipal Trial Court - ____________________
LEGAL FEES FORM
CASE NO. 11-00001

payments:
1. SAJF P 5,261.00 O.R. No. 0000102

2. JDF 2,939.00 O.R. No. 0000202
3. GF - O.R. No. _______
4. FF - O.R. No. _______
5. STF 1,000.00 O.R. No. 0000302
6. MF 500.00 O.R. No. 0000402
7. LRF 82.00 * O.R. No. 1111112
8. VCF 5.00 O.R. No. 2222222

__________________ ___________________

Fee under Sec. 8(c) P 500.00 P 360.00 P 140.00
Summon – Sec. 10(a) 200.00 144.00 56.00
Damages Prayed – Sec. 8(a)** 7,500.00 4,757.00 2,743.00
**Damages Prayed – Sec. 8(a) TOTAL Fees For SAJF For JDF
Not more than P400,000.00 (Sec 8(a) #5) P 5,000.00 P 3,150.00 P 1,850.00
Jump back to Sec. 8(a) #3 2,500.00 1,607.00 893.00
Total P 7,500.00 P 4,757.00 P 2,743.00
*LRF COMPUTATION:
Particulars Amount
LRF Fee P 82.00
36
2.b. For 2nd Level Courts:

Regional Trial Court - _____________________
LEGAL FEES FORM
CASE NO. 11-00001

payments:
1. SAJF P 45,994.00 O.R. No. 0000101

2. JDF 30,706.00 O.R. No. 0000201
3. GF - O.R. No. _______
4. FF - O.R. No. _______
5. STF 1,000.00 O.R. No. 0000301
6. MF 500.00 O.R. No. 0000401
7. LRF 767.00 * O.R. No. 1111111
8. VCF 5.00 O.R. No. 2222221

__________________ ___________________
(Note:______________________________________________)

Fees under Sec. 7(a)** P 76,500.00 P 45,850.00 P 30,650.00
**Fees under Sec. 7(a): TOTAL Fees For SAJF For JDF
Not more than P400,000.00 P 4,500.00 P2,650.00 P1,850.00
P20.00 for each P1,000.00 in excess of
P400,000.00
((3,600k/1k)x20)=P72,000.00; 72,000.00 43,200.00 28,800.00
[ratio: 12:20, for SAJ & 8:20 for JDF]
Total P 76,500.00 P 45,850.00 P 30,650.00
*LRF COMPUTATION:
Particulars Amount
LRF Fee P 767.00
37
IX. RULES OF PROCEDURE ON CORPORATE REHABILITATION
The Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (2008), A.M. No. 00-8-10-

24
SC , dated December 2, 2008, taken effect on January 16, 2009, approved, per
recommendation of the Sub-Committee on Special Rules for Special Commercial Courts,
requires that petition for rehabilitation shall be accompanied by the following
documents:
(1) An audited financial statement of the debtor at the end of its last fiscal year;
(2) Interim financial statements as of the end of the month prior to the filing of
the petition;
(3) A Schedule of Debts and Liabilities which lists all the creditors of the debtor,
indicating the name and last address of record of each creditor; the amount
of each claim as to principal, interest, or penalties due as of the date of filing;
the nature of the claim; and any pledge, lien, mortgage judgment or other
security given for the payment thereof;
(4) An Inventory of Assets which must list with reasonable specificity all the
assets of the debtor, stating the nature of each asset, the location and
condition thereof, the book value or market value of the asset, and attaching
the corresponding certificate of title thereof in case of real property, or the
evidence of title or ownership in case of movable property, the
encumbrances, liens or claims thereon, if any, and the identities and
addresses of the lien holders and claimants. The Inventory shall include a
Schedule of Accounts Receivable which must indicate the amount of each,
the persons from who due, the date of maturity and the degree of
collectibility categorizing them as highly collectible to remotely collectible;
(5) A rehabilitation plan which conforms with the minimal requirements set out
in Section 18 of Rule 3;
(6) A Schedule of Payments and Disposition of Assets which the debtor may have
effected within three (3) months immediately preceding the filing of the
petition;
(7) A Schedule of Cash Flow of the debtor for three (3) months immediately
preceding the filing of the petition, and a detailed schedule of the projected
cash flow for the succeeding three (3) months;
(8) A Statement of Possible Claims by or against the debtor which must contain a
brief statement of the facts which might give rise to the claim and an
estimate of the probable amount thereof;
(9) An Affidavit of General Financial Condition which shall contain answers to the
questions or matters prescribed in Annex "A" hereof;
(10) At least three (3) nominees for the position of rehabilitation receiver as well
as their qualifications and addresses, including but not limited to their
telephone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail address; and
(11) A certificate attesting under oath that (i) the filing of the petition has been
duly authorized; and (ii) the directors and stockholders of the debtor have
irrevocably approved and/or consented to, in accordance with existing laws,
all actions or matters necessary and desirable to rehabilitate the debtor
including, but not limited to, amendments to the articles of incorporation
and by-laws or articles of partnership; increase or decrease in the authorized
capital stock; issuance of bonded indebtedness; alienation, transfer, or
24
Annex W
38
encumbrance of assets of the debtor; and modification of shareholders'

rights.
DOCKET FEES FOR PETITION ON CORPORATE REHABILITATION CAN

BE PAID ON STAGGERED BASIS.
OCA CIRCULAR NO. 138-200625, dated September 27, 2006, clarifies

amendment of Sec. 21(i), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court (A.M. No. 04-2-04-
SC, August 16, 2004). The Court En Banc acting on the Resolution dated
September 5, 2006 on the Committee on the Revision of Rules of Court,
inserted this provision:
xxx
2. MANNER OF PAYMENT. –
2.1. FEES AMOUNTING TO Php100,000.00 OR
LESS SHALL BE PAID UPON THE FILING OF THE
PETITION.
2.2. FEES INEXCESS OF Php100,000.00 MAY BE
PAID ON STAGGERED BASIS AS FOLLOWS:
2.2.1. P100,000.00 SHALL BE PAID UPON
FILING OF PETITION.
2.2.2. THE BALANCE SHALL BE PAID IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
SCHEDULE:
2.2.2.1. 25% SHALL BE PAID UPON
THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER GIVING DUE
COURSE TO THE PETITION.
2.2.2.2. 25% SHALL BE PAID UPON
THE APPROVAL OF THE
REHABILITATION PLAN; AND
2.2.2.3. THE BALANCE OF 50% SHALL
BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE PREFERRED
PAYABLES TO BE SETTELED IN THE
REHABILITATION PLAN.
The value of the assets shall be based on the fair market value of the
real property of the petitioner stated in the tax declaration or zonal value
thereof fixed by the Bureau of Internal Revenue, whichever is higher, or, if
there is none, the stated value of the assets in the petition. In case of
personal property, the value shall be stated by the petitioner in the petition.
If during trial, the Court finds that the value of the assets is more or
the monetary claims are higher than the amounts stated in the complaints or
petition, then it shall order the payment of additional fees based thereon.
X. EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE
25
Annex L
39
CIRCULAR NO. 7-200226, dated January 22, 2002, issued pursuant to the
Supreme Court En Banc Resolution of December 14, 1999 in Administrative Matter No.
99-10-05-0, as amended by the resolutions of January 30, 2001 and August 7, 2001,
directing the Office of the Court Administrator to prepare the guidelines for the
enforcement of A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 on the extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgages.
PROCEDURES:
(1) Upon filing the application for extra-judicial foreclosure, the Clerk of Court shall
examine the same to ensure that the special power of attorney authorizing the
extra-judicial foreclosure of the real property is either inserted into or attached to
the deed of real estate mortgage (Act No. 3135, Sec. 1, as amended); (Sec. 1 & 2(a)
of Circular No. 7-2002)
(2) The COC shall give a file number to the application and endorse the date and time of
its filing and thereafter docket the same, keeping, in this connection, separate
docket books for extra-judicial foreclosure sales conducted by the Sheriff and those
conducted by notaries public; (Sec. 2 (b) of Circular No. 7-2002)
(3) The COC shall collect the appropriate filing fees and issues the corresponding official
receipt pursuant to Sections 7 (c) & 10 (h) of A.M. No. 35-2004; (amended
provisions)
Cooperatives, thrift banks, and rural banks are not exempt from the
payment of filing fees and other fees under these guidelines (A.M. No. 98-9-
280-RTC, September 29, 1998; A.M. No. 99-3-93-RTC, April 20, 1999 and A.M.
No. 92-9-408-0).
Further, in a resolution written by Senior Associate Justice Antonio T.

Carpio, the Supreme Court denied the petition for review filed by the Baguio
Market Vendors Multi-Purpose Cooperative (BAMARVEMPCO) (G.R. No.
165922, February 26, 2010). The cooperative sought to set aside an earlier
lower court ruling denying BAMARVEMPCO’s bid to be exempted from the
payment of all court and sheriff’s fees to be incurred in the mortgage
foreclosure. The Supreme Court ruled that credit cooperatives are subject to
payment of legal fees when they file for the extrajudicial foreclosure of
mortgage on the loan secured by properties, for the “Petitions for Extrajudicial
Foreclosure Outside of the Ambit of Article 62(6) of RA 6938”.
The recent decision is the case of Baguio Market Vendors Multi-Purpose

Cooperative (BAMARVEMPCO) vs. Hon. Iluminada Cabato-Cortes, EJ, RTC, Baguio City,
G.R. No. 165922, March 21, 2010, where the Supreme Court ruled that Section 62 (6)
of RA 6938 does not apply to BAMARVEMPCO’s mortage foreclosure proceedings.
Hence, CREDIT COOPERATIVES NOT EXEMPT FROM FORECLOSURE FEES.
PARTIAL EXEMPTION: In a resolution of the Court En Banc dated July 7,

2009, A.M. No. 09-6-250-RTC (RE: Request of Atty. Anna Rosario Paner for
clarification on the Applicability of Sec. 15, of R.A. 9182 as Amended by R.A.
3343), the Court Resolved, upon recommendation of the Office of the Court
26
Annex X
40
Administrator (OCA), to GRANT all Special Purpose Vehicles a fifty percent

(50%) discount on the filing fees for any foreclosure initiated by the Special
Purpose Vehicles (SPV)27 in relation to any non-performing assets (NPA)
acquired from any Financial Institutions (FI), as prescribed by the Rules of Court
on Filing Fees.
(4) If extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgages of real estates and/ or chattels in different

locations covering one indebtedness, the COC shall issue, apart from the official
receipt for the fees, a certificate of payment indicating the:
4.1 amount of indebtedness,
4.2 the filing fees collected,
4.3 the mortgages sought to be foreclosed,
4.4 the real estates and/ or chattels mortgaged, and
4.5 their respective locations, for purposes of having the application

docketed with the Clerks of Court in the places where the other
properties are located and of allowing the extra-judicial foreclosure to
proceed thereat. (A.M. No. 99-10-05-0, par. 2 (e); (Sec. 2 of Circular No.
7-2002)
(5) EJF shall be raffled under the supervision of the Executive Judge, with the
assistance of the Clerk of Courts and Ex-Oficio Sheriff, among all Sheriffs
including those assigned to the Office of the clerk of court and Sheriffs assigned
in the branches of the court. A Sheriff to whom the case has been raffled shall be
excluded in the succeeding raffles and shall participate again only after all other
Sheriffs shall have been assigned a case by raffle (Administrative Circular No. 3-
98, Feb. 5, 1998); (Sec. 3 of Circular No. 7-2002)
(6) The Sheriff to whom the application for extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage
was raffled shall:
6.1 prepare a Notice of extra-Judicial Sale (form provided); (Sec. 4 of

Circular No. 7-2002)
6.2 cause the publication of the notice of sale (see Sec. 4 (b) of
Circular No. 7-2002)
For real estate mortgages covering loans not exceeding

P100,000.00 exclusive of interests due unpaid, granted by rural
banks (RA No. 7353, Sec. 6) or thrift banks28 (RA No. 7906, Sec.
27
Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV)- An SPV shall be organized as a stock corporation in accordance with
Batas Pambansa Blg. 68, otherwise known as “The Corporation Code of the Philipppines” and the rules
promulgated by the Commission for purposes of registering the SPV;xxxxx ; Powers of an SPV: (a) to
invest in, acquired NPAs of FIs; xxx; (c) to rent, lease, hire, pledge, mortgage, transfer, sell, exchange,
usufruct, secure, securitize, collect rents and profits, xxxx
28
The thrift banking system is composed of savings and mortgage banks, private development banks,
stock savings and loan associations and microfinance thrift banks. Thrift banks are engaged in
accumulating savings of depositors and investing them. They also provide short-term working capital
41
18), publication in a newspaper shall be dispensed with, it being

sufficient that the notices of foreclosure are posted for a period
of sixty (60) days immediately preceding the public auction in
the most conspicuous areas of the municipal building, the
municipal public market, the rural bank, the barangay hall, and
the barangay public market, if any, where the land mortgaged is
situated.
6.3 conduct the extra-judicial foreclosure sale (Sec. 5 of Ciruclar No.

7-2002);
(7) In the conduct the extra-judicial foreclosure sale:
(a) The bidding must be made through sealed bids;
(b) The sale must be between 9 am to 4 pm;
(c) Property mortgaged shall be awarded to the highest bidder;
(d) In case of a tie, an open bidding shall be conducted between the highest
bidders. (Sec. 5(a) of Circular No. 7-2002)
(8) The sale must be made in the province in which the real property is situated,
otherwise stipulated. In case of chattel mortgage, the sale shall be made at a
place where the mortgagor resides or where the property is situated. (Sec. 5(b)
of Circular No. 7-2002)
(9) After the sale, the COC shall collect the appropriate fees pursuant to Sec. 10 (l) of
Administrative Circular No. 35-2004; (Sec. 6 of Circular No. 7-2002)
Administrative Circular No. 111-200729, November 13, 2007, the Court

declares that the En Banc resolution dated July 20, 2004 in A.M. 04-2-04-SC
entitled “Revision of the Rule 141, Revised Rules of Court” which became
effective August 16, 2004 has repealed the Php100,000.00 cap for the payment
of the sheriff’s fees provided in A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 dated January 30, 2001.
(10) In case of foreclosure under Acts No. 1508 (The Chattel Mortgage Law), the
sheriff shall within Thirty (30) days from the sale, prepare a return and file the
same in the Office of the Registry of Deeds where the mortgage is recorded;
(Sec. 7 of Circular No. 7-2002);
(11) The sheriff or the notary public who conducted the same report the name/s of
the bidder/s to the COC. (Sec 8 of Circular No. 7-2002).
(12) Upon presentation of appropriate receipts, the COC shall issue and sign the
Certificate of Sale (COS), subject to the approval of the Executive Judge, after
payment of the Php500.00 as provided in Sec. 21(d) of Administrative Circular
No. 35-2004; in extra-judicial foreclosure sale conducted by the notary public,
and medium- and long-term financing to businesses engaged in agriculture, services, industry and
housing, and diversified financial and allied services, and to their chosen markets and constituencies,
especially small- and medium- enterprises and individuals. (BSP Circular)
29
Annex Y
42
collect the additional appropriate fees pursuant to Sec. 21(e) of Administrative

Circular No. 35-2004; (Sec. 9 of Circular No. 7-2002);
(13) After the COS has been issued, the COC shall keep and archive the complete
records for the following periods for the right of redemption take place, to wit:
13.1. If the mortgagor is an individual, within one (1) year from the date of
registration of the COS with the Register of Deeds (Sec. 10 of Circular No.
7-2002).
12.2. If the mortgagor is a juridical entity, until, but not later than, the
registration of the certificate of foreclosure sale which in no case more
than three (3) months after foreclosure, whichever is earlier. (Sec. 10 of
Circular No. 7-2002).
(14) In case the property is redeemed, the COC shall assess the redemptioner’s fee as
provided in Sec. 7(k) of Administrative Circular No. 35-2004; (Sec. 10 of Circular
No. 7-2002).
(15) In case the property is not redeemed, the COC shall, as a requisite for the
issuance of the final Deed of Sale, assess the highest bidder the amount of
Php500.00 as provided in Sec. 21(d) of Administrative Circular No. 35-2004. (Sec.
10 of Circular No. 7-2002).
(16) ADDITIONAL RULES WITH RESPECT TO OCA CIRCULAR NO. 25-200730, take effect
on March 10, 2007: The Supreme Court En Banc, acting on the recommendation
of the Committee on Revision of the Rules of Court, in its Resolution dated
February 20, 2007 in A.M. No. 99-10-05-0, resolved to adopt the following
additional rules with respect to Extrajudicial or Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate
Mortgages:
(a) No temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the

extra-judicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage shall be issued on the
allegation that the loan secured by the mortgage has been paid or is not
delinquent unless the application is verified and supported by evidence of
payment;
(b) No temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the
extrajudicial foreclosure of real estate mortgage shall be issued on the
allegation that the interest on the principal obligation as stated in the
application for foreclosure sale, which shall be updated monthly while the
case is pending;
(c) Where the writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against a
foreclosure of mortgage, the disposition of the case shall be speedily
resolved. To this end, the Court concerned shall submit to the Supreme
Court, through the OCA, quarterly reports on the progress of the cases
involving ten million (10M) pesos and above.
(d) All requirements and restrictions prescribed for the issuance of a temporary
restraining order/writ of preliminary injunction, such as the posting of a
bond, which shall be equal to the amount of the outstanding debt, and the
time limitation for its effectivity, shall apply as well as to a status quo order.
30
Annex Z
43
COMPUTATION NO. 3 EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE CASE

Problem:
Baguio Market Vendors Cooperative filed an application for extra-
judicial foreclosure of the property of Jewel Pawnshop, Inc. in the RTC
Baguio City.
The petition shows unpaid obligations of P90,000.00, excluding
P25,000.00 due and unpaid interest.
1) How much is the filing fee, if any?
ANSWER TO No. 1:

Regional Trial Court - ____________________
LEGAL FEES FORM
FILE NO. 11-0003
RECEIVED this ___9th day of ___August____, 2011 the following

payments:
1. SAJF P 577.00 O.R. No. 0000103

2. JDF 573.00 O.R. No. 0000203
3. GF - O.R. No. _______
4. FF - O.R. No. _______
5. STF - O.R. No. _______
6. MF - O.R. No. _______
7. LRF - O.R. No. _______
8. VCF - O.R. No. _______

__________________ ___________________
(Note:______________________________________________)

Fee under Sec. 7 (c) P 1,000.00 P 500.00 P 500.00
Posting & Publication Fee – Sec. 10(h) 150.00 73.00 77.00
Total docket fees P 1,150.00 P 573.00 P 577.00
In a notice of sale posted by the assigned sheriff, the real property of

Jewel Pawnshop, Inc. is scheduled for auction sale. Unpaid obligations of
P90,000, plus due and unpaid interest on loan amounting to P35,000.00
appearing on the face of the notice.
On the date of the scheduled auction sale, Mr. Benie Cheng
participated and bid the amount of P150,000.00, and he was the highest
bidder.
44
2) How much should Mr. Benie Cheng need to pay to get the
Certificate of Sale?
ANSWER TO No. 2:

LEGAL FEES FORM
FILE NO. 11-0005

payments:
9. SAJF P 1,720.00 O.R. No. 0000105

10. JDF 3,380.00 O.R. No. 0000205
11. GF - O.R. No. _______
12. FF - O.R. No. _______
13. STF - O.R. No. _______
14. MF - O.R. No. _______
15. LRF - O.R. No. _______
16. VCF - O.R. No. _______
Total: P 5,100.00

__________________ ___________________
(Note:______________________________________________)
COMPUTATION: TOTAL Fees For SAJF For JDF

Sheriff’s Commission - Sec. 10 (l)* P 4,600.00 P 3,080.00 P 1,520.00
Certificate of Sale Fee – Sec. 21(d) 500.00 300.00 200.00
Total P 5,100.00 P 3,380.00 P 1,720.00
* Sheriff’s Commission Computation: TOTAL Fees For SAJF For JDF

P4,000 x 5.5% (ratio is 4:5.5 & 1.5:5.5) P 220.00 P 160.00 P 60.00
P146,000 x 3% (ratio is 2:3 & 1:3) 4,380.00 2,920.00 1,460.00
Total P 4,600.00 P 3,080.00 P 1,520.00
One month after, Mr. Benie Cheng registered the Certificate of Sale to
the Register of Deeds and came to your office that day. Mr. Cheng is
requesting for the release of the Final Deed of Sale.
3) Are you going to issue a Final Deed of Sale for the auctioned
property of Jewel Pawnshop, Inc.?
Yes, because the mortgagor is a juridical entity and the

redemption period expires upon registration of the property in
the Register of Deeds (i.e. the date of the registration of the
Certificate of Sale in the Register Deeds or the three (3) months
45
period, whichever comes first), not a one (1) year redemption

period.
4) How much should Mr. Benie Cheng have to pay to get the Final
Deed of Sale?
ANSWER TO No.4:

LEGAL FEES FORM
FILE NO. 11-0006

payments:
1. SAJF P 200.00 O.R. No. 0000106

2. JDF 300.00 O.R. No. 0000206
3. GF - O.R. No. _______
4. FF - O.R. No. _______
5. STF - O.R. No. _______
6. MF - O.R. No. _______
7. LRF - O.R. No. _______
8. VCF - O.R. No. _______
Total: P 500.00

__________________ ___________________
(Note:______________________________________________)
Only the fee prescribed in Sec. 21(l) shall be collected.
NO MINIMUM BID AMOUNT IN EJF AUCTION SALE.
In the case of BPI, as Successor-in-interest Of Far East Bank & Trust Company,
vs. Cynthia L. Reyes, G.R. No. 182769, promulgated on February 1, 2012, the Supreme
Court ruled that:
xxx a low price is more beneficial to the mortgage debtor for it makes redemption of the
property easier. Xxx
Citing the case of The National Loan and Investment Board v. Meneses, the
court emphasized that:
xxx. When there is a right to redeem, inadequacy of price should not be
material because the judgment debtor may re-acquire the property or else sell his
right to redeem and thus recover any loss he claims to have suffered by reason of the
46
price obtained at the execution sale. Thus, respondent stood to gain rather than be
harmed by the low sale value of the auctioned properties because it possesses the
right of redemption. x x x
XI. SMALL CLAIMS
The Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, as amended, dated March, 2010 provides
filing fees such as:
a) Fees Prescribed under Sec. 8(a) of Rule 141 as amended; plus,
b) For small claims cases filed by frequent filers, additional filing fee of:
 P500 = if >10 but <21 claims filed by the same party; or
 P500 + P100 = if >20 but <31 claims filed by the same party; or
 P500 + P100 + P100 = if >30 but <41 claims filed by the same party; or
 P500 + P100 + P100 + P100 = if >40 but <51 claims filed by the same party; or
 So on and so forth until 1,400th claim – the maximum filing fee of P20,000.
c) Additional Filing Fee is to be deposited to the Judiciary Development Fund account.
XII. ELECTION CONTESTS/PROTESTS:
Section 1, Rule 7 of the 2010 Rules of Procedure in Election Contests before the Courts
involving Elective Municipal Officials provides that:
“No protest, counter protest or petition for quo warranto shall be accepted for
filing without the payment of a filing fee in the amount of Three Thousand Pesos
(P3,000.00) for every protest, counter protest or petition for quo warranto filed.
If claims for damages and attorney’s fees are set forth in a protest or counter-
protest, additional filing fees shall be paid in accordance with the schedule under Rule
141 of the Rules of Court, as amended.
Section 2, ibid., requires the protestant to make a cash deposit, in addition to the fees
prescribed in the preceding section, the following amounts:
a) P1,000.00 per precinct but not less than P25,000.00, to be paid upon filing of the
election protest; plus
b) P25,000.00 for the cost of bringing to court and of storing and maintaining the PCOS,
the consolidation machines and other automated election paraphernalia brought to
court as evidence or as necessary equipment in considering the protested or counter-
protested ballots.
NOTA BENE:
 if the amount deposited does not exceed P100,000.00, the required sum
shall be paid in full within 10 days from the filing of the protest or counter-
protest; or
 if the required deposit shall exceed P100,000.00, a cash deposit in the
amount of P100,000.00 shall be made within 10 days from the filing of the
47
protest or the counter-protest. The balance shall be paid in instalments

under the schedule the court may require after hearing the protestant or
counter-protestant on the matter.
 Otherwise, an automatic dismissal of the protest or counter-protest.
XIII. RETIREMENT/RESIGNATION/PROMOTION/TRANSFER
Circular No. 41-2002, dated March 26, 2002, provides that the an applicant for
compulsory retirement, who is/was an Accountable Officer, must inform the Court
Management Office, OCA that he is compulsorily retiring from the service a year
earlier.
His Executive/Presiding Judge must designate an Officer-In-Charge two (2)
months before the effectivity date of retirement of the incumbent Accountable
Officer.
XIV. CHECKLIST OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXAMINATION ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS

OF ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER
The following documents are needed for the examination of the books of accounts of
an accountable officer applying for clearance from the Fiscal Monitoring Division, Court
Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator:
1) OFFICIAL CASHBOOKS & TRIPLICATE COPY OF OFFICIAL RECEIPTS ISSUED;
2) FILE COPY(IES) OF MONTHLY REPORT OF COLLECTIONS AND DEPOSITS

TOGETHER WITH THE DULY VALIDATED DUPLICATE COPIES OF REMITTANCE
ADVICES/DEPOSIT SLIPS AND/OR PMO STUBS OR CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF OFFICIAL
RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT AS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR PMO
REMITTANCES FOR THE SAME PERIOD STATED ABOVE FOR THE FOLLOWING FUNDS:
A. Judiciary Development Fund

B. Special Allowances for the Judiciary (SAJ)
C. Fiduciary Fund
D. Sheriff Trust Fund
E. Mediation Fund (MF)
3) LIST OF FIDUCIARY FUND COLLECTIONS (CASHBONDS/SURETY BONDS/PROPERTY

BONDS/RENTAL DEPOSITS/CONSIGNATION);
4) LIST OF SHERIFF'S TRUST FUND COLLECTIONS;
5) LIST OF WITHDRAWN FIDUCIARY FUNDS (CASHBONDS/SURETY BONDS/PROPERTY

BONDS/RENTAL DEPOSITS/CONSIGNATION);
6) LIST OF WITHDRAWN SHERIFF'S TRUST FUND;
7) INCLUDE THE FILE COPY(IES) OF MONTHLY REPORT OF COLLECTIONS, DEPOSITS

AND WITHDRAWALS TOGETHER WITH THE READABLE CERTIFIED TRUE COPIES OF ALL
PASSBOOKS, DEPOSIT & WITHDRAWAL SLIPS, COURT ORDER AUTHORIZING THE
WITHDRAWALS MADE, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT OF LITIGANTS/BONDSMAN FOR
EVERY CASE, AND THE ORIGINAL COPY OF SURRENDERED OFFICIAL:
48
a) Judiciary Development Fund

b) Special Allowances for the Judiciary (SAJ)
c) Fiduciary Fund
d) Sheriff Trust Fund
e) Mediation Fund (MF)
8) STATEMENT OF UNWITHDRAWN FIDUCIARY FUND/SHERIFF'S TRUST FUND

(CASHBONDS/SURETY BONDS/PROPERTY BONDS/RENTAL DEPOSITS/CONSIGNATION)
9) IN CASE OF WITHDRAWALS FROM FIDUCIARY FUND ARE MADE BY CHECKS, IT

MUST BE SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING:
a) List of Checks Issued, as per attached form

b) List of Stale/Cancelled/Encashed Checks paid by the bank as of the cut-off date
c) Monthly Bank Statements
d) List of Outstanding Checks as of the cut-off date
e) Bank to Book Reconciliation
The Total Amount of the Unwithdrawn Fiduciary Fund/Sheriff’s Trust Fund must tally with the
Passbook balance (interest earned net of withholding tax should be deducted from the total deposits
made) and the Cashbook balance.
In case you have no Sheriff’s Trust Fund Collections, a Certification and Explanation to that
effect (with court’s seal) is required to be issued by the Clerk of Court and noted by the Judge.
If there are direct deposits made by the litigants and/or deposits made by the Clerk of Court/OIC
to the Municipal/City/Provincial Treasurer’s Office, a Certification as to the Unwithdrawn Fiduciary
Fund must be requested as of the last day in office/cut-off date to be certified correct by the
Municipal/City/Provincial Treasurer and Accountant.
10) ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR FIDUCIARY FUND/SHERIFF'S TRUST

FUND:
a) Summary of Interest Earned on Fiduciary Fund/Sheriff's Trust Fund (one form for each bank
account/each fund).
b) List of Confiscated Bonds to be supported by copy(ies) of deposit slip(s) proof of
remittance(s)
c) Official Receipts issued under General Fund prior to November 1999 and Judiciary
Development Fund effective November 1999
d) Bank Passbook(s) (all filled-up & current copy(ies) and Bank Certificate as of the cut-off
date.
11) Others:
a) Statement of Turnover of Accountability to be signed by the incoming Clerk of Court/

Accountable Officer and noted by the Presiding Judge.
b) Official designation of subsequent/incoming Clerk of Court/Officer-in-Charge and the duly
accomplished Personal Data Form (With Required Format).
c) Inventory of Used and Unused Official Receipts, as per attached form
d) List of Cancelled Official Receipts for all funds
e) Affidavit of Undertaking if travelling abroad or filing a long leave of absence.
By: Dexter S. Ilagan

Officer-In-Charge
Fiscal Monitoring Division
Court Management Office, OCA
Supreme Court
49

Handout For Clerks of Court PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Handout For Clerks of Court PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

COLLECTION OF FEES – by DSI

By: Dexter S. Ilagan

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION RULE – words used in statutes are to be given their

I.2. SUBSTITUTION OF PAYMENTS OF DOCKET FEES FROM ONE COURT STATION TO

I.3 REFUND OF FILING FEES PAID TO THE COURT IS NOT ALLOWED.

I.4 PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF EXHIBITS SHALL BE DEPOSITED TO JDF.

Administrative Order No. 170-2008, dated November 11, 2008, directs

I.5 FINES IMPOSED IN VIOLATION OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE SHALL ACCRUE TO

In OCA CIRCULAR No. 10-2002, dated February 5, 2002, the

All Clerks of Court are hereby directed to remit to the local

In a Court en banc resolution dated January 18, 2011, concerning A.M.

4. Forfeited cash deposits made to guarantee undertakings in favor

II. FUNCTIONS, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLERK OF COURT/ACCOUNTABLE

A) CLERK OF COURT’S FUNCTIONS/DUTIES ARE NOT MERELY MINISTERIAL.

BSP v. Executive Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas, et. al, A.M.No. RTJ-06-1999

The Supreme Court held that:

“Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff xxx cannot avoid

B) CLERK OF COURT SHOULD EXERCISE SERVICE WITH LOYALTY, INTEGRITY

OCA v. Atty. Fermin M. Ofilas and Ms. Aranzazu V. Baltazar, COC VI

The Clerk of Court, Atty. Fermin Ofilas, delegated the financial

During the cash count of the auditors, the amount of unremitted

Accountable forms such as triplicate copies, official receipts and

The official cash books were not properly accomplished and

There were discrepancies and irregularities in the financial

An aggregate total of P279,200.00 confiscated cash bond was

Atty. Ofilas was found to have deposited the amount of

With respect to records of extra-judicial foreclosure of mortgage,

A significant number of check payments were converted to cash

The Supreme Court held that:

“No less than the Constitution mandates that “public

“Next to the Judge, the clerk of court is the chief administrative

A number of non-judicial concerns connected with trial and

Court personnel tasked with collections of court funds, such as

“Atty. Fermin M. Ofilas, former Clerk of Court, Regional

C) CLERK OF COURT SHOULD NOT ISSUE HANDWRITTEN RECEIPTS.

In the case of OCA vs. GREGORIO B. SADDI, Clerk of Court, MTC,

“Saddi’s act of issuing a handwritten receipt for the payment of

By these deplorable acts of gross dishonesty, grave misconduct

The Clerk of Court was held GUILTY of Gross Dishonesty, Grave

D) CLERK OF COURT’S RELIANCE ON EMPLOYEES OF LOWER RANK PROJECTS

“Service with loyalty, integrity and efficiency is required of all

The performance of one’s duties in a perfunctory manner is never

Encashing postdated checks of employees is unacceptable and

Mediocrity is not at all fit for a member of a competent tasked to

E) CLERK OF COURT IS TASKED TO ENSURE THAT HIS/HER SUBORNINATES

F) CLERK OF COURT IS THE CUSTODIAN OF THE COURT’S FUNDS, REVENUES,

“The Clerks of Court perform a very delicate function as custodian

G) CLERK OF COURT IS MULTI-TASKED.

In the case of OCA v. Elumbaring, A.M. No. P-10-2765, September 13,

Elumbaring disputed the audit team’s findings by submitting

Elumbaring likewise argued that she does not know to operate a

Citing the case of OCA v. Roque, A.M. No. P-06-2200, February 4,

“Clerks of Court wear many hats – those of treasurer,

Elumbaring was found GUILTY of DISHONESTY and DISMISSED

H) PERSONAL FINANCIAL PROBLEMS CAN NEVER BE A VALID EXCUSE FOR

The Supreme Court held that:

“xxx Personal problems cannot justify the misuse by any court

WHEREFORE, respondent Normalyn P. Nacuray is found GUILTY of

I) CLERK OF COURT CANNOT RESORT TO PROTESTATION OF GOOD FAITH TO

Respondents were just involved in the irregularities committed by

Respondents felt constrained to hand over the money because Judge

RULINGS OF THE COURT: