THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-17-3719. May 12, 2021.]Formerly A.M. No. 14-8-242-RTC
RE: FAILURE OF MR. JOSEPH T. LAVARIAS, OIC-COC, RTC, BRANCH 45, SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO, TO COMPLY WITH THE MEMORANDUM DATED 17 FEBRUARY 2012 OF THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR [OCA]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner, vs. MR. JOSEPH T. LAVARIAS, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE/CLERK OF COURT [OIC-COC], REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], BRANCH 45, SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL MINDORO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 12, 2021, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-17-3719 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Mr. Joseph T. Lavarias, Officer-in-Charge/Clerk of Court [OIC-COC], Regional Trial Court [RTC], Branch 45, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro) Formerly A.M. No. 14-8-242-RTC (Re: Failure of Mr. Joseph T. Lavarias, OIC-COC, RTC, Branch 45, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, to comply with the Memorandum dated 17 February 2012 of the Office of the Court Administrator [OCA]). — This case stemmed from the letters 1 sent by Millora & Associates Law Offices to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) regarding the alleged unauthorized collection of fees by respondent Joseph T. Lavarias, Officer-in-Charge, Clerk of Court (OIC-COC) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 45, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. The law office alleged that from 2010 to 2011, respondent collected P200.00 for every 'other motion' 2 its clients filed, even if the imposition of such fee had been suspended by the Court. 3 Respondent's total collection amounted to P67,600.00. 4
The OCA agreed with Millora & Associates Law Offices that there was no fee imposed for 'other motion' under the prevailing rule at the time of respondent's collection. 5 Thus, in its February 17, 2012 Memorandum, 6 the OCA directed respondent to submit the following:
1) a detailed accounting of the unauthorized collected fees imposed on Atty. Cesar M. Solis [of Millora & Associates Law Offices] for his client;
2) the total amount necessary for refund;
3) certified copies of official receipts pertaining thereto; and
4) the pertinent monthly reports showing that these fees were deposited to the corresponding accounts. 7 CAIHTE
Instead of submitting the documents, respondent wrote letters to the Court, 8 stating that (1) he had already resigned from his position; 9 (2) that all collections pertaining to the case had been deposited with Land Bank of the Philippines; 10 (3) that he did not have copies of the reports submitted but that the same may be accessed from the proper division of the Court; 11 (4) that assuming he mistakenly collected unauthorized fees, he apologized to the Court and to Millora & Associates Law Offices; 12 (5) that his mistake was only made upon reliance on the advice given by the executive judge; 13 (6) that the delay in his response was due to the medical condition of his son; 14 (7) that his resignation resulted in his lack of a stable job; 15 (8) that his applications for transfer to government agencies had been declined for lack of clearance from this Court; 16 and (9) that his liabilities be deducted from his last salaries, and if the same were insufficient, that his resignation be converted to optional retirement so that his retirement pay may be tapped for payment of such accountabilities. 17
Because respondent still failed to submit the documents, this Court, in two resolutions, fined him twice in the amounts of P1,000.00 and P10,000.00, respectively. 18 He was also found guilty of gross insubordination. 19
Meanwhile, on a separate matter, the Accounting Division requested a financial audit of respondent's accounts for his failure to comply with the required submission of monthly reports by COCs. Pursuant to such request, a team from the Fiscal Monitoring Division was directed to conduct an audit covering the period of respondent's tenure as OIC-COC. 20
In another letter, 21 respondent informed the Court that he had already paid the fines. 22 He reiterated that to his personal knowledge and belief, he had already complied with the required submission of documents and that the same may be verified with the concerned unit or division of the OCA. 23 He thus prayed that the instant administrative case be closed and terminated. 24
The Court, adopting the OCA's recommendations, 25 denied his request 26 for his continued failure to submit the documents, among other reasons. 27 The Court also warned respondent that it would proceed to resolve the issue of whether he collected unauthorized fees based solely on the records should he continue to refuse to submit the documents. 28
On March 9, 2020, the OCA submitted to this Court the result of the financial audit, showing that the amounts collected by respondent from the clients of Millora & Associates Law Offices had been remitted to the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF). 29
To this date, respondent has yet to submit the documents needed to determine whether he indeed collected unauthorized fees.
Our Ruling
Considering respondent's continued failure to submit the documents, this Court shall now proceed to resolve the issue based on the result of the financial audit and the submissions of the parties.
In all of his letters, respondent never denied that he collected P200.00 for every 'other motion' filed by the clients of Millora & Associates Law Offices. The reason appears to be his reliance on Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 04-2-04-SC dated July 20, 2004, 30 or the new rule, requiring the payment of such fee. 31
Section 21 of the new rule reads:
SECTION 21. Other fees. — The following fees shall also be collected by the clerks of the Regional Trial Courts or courts of the first level, as the case may be:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) For motions for postponement (whether verbal or written) after completion of the pre-trial stage, TWO HUNDRED (P200.00) PESOS for the first, and an additional FIFTY (P50.00) PESOS for every motion for postponement thereafter based on that for the immediately preceding motion. For any other motion, TWO HUNDRED (P200.00) PESOS[.] (Emphasis supplied)
Before the new rule took effect, there was no fee collected for 'other motion' as provided under the old rule:
SECTION 20. Other fees. — The following fees shall also be collected by the clerks of Regional Trial Courts or courts of the first level, as the case may be:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) For motions for postponement after completion of the pre-trial stage, one hundred pesos (P100.00) for the first, and an additional fifty pesos (P50.00) for every postponement thereafter based on that for the immediately preceding motion: Provided, however, that no fee shall be imposed when the motion is found to be based on justifiable and compelling reason[.] 32
While the new rule became effective on August 16, 2004, more than a month later, or on September 21, 2004, the Court suspended its implementation with respect to solemnization of marriage, motions, and compulsory counterclaims:
The Court further Resolved to AFFIRM the actions of the Honorable Associate Justices, in its informal meeting held on 20 September 2004, and SUSPEND the new rates of the legal fees under Rule 141, effective 21 September 2004, viz.:
(a) Solemnization of marriage;
(b) Motions; and
(c) Compulsory counterclaims. 33 (Emphasis supplied)
Accordingly, the fees for motions, including 'other motions,' remained to be those imposed under the old rule. DETACa
The suspension was reiterated in OCA Circular No. 96-09 dated August 13, 2009, 34 and more recently, in OCA Circular No. 171-19 dated October 4, 2019: 35
Due to numerous inquiries and inconsistencies observed in the collection of fees on motions prescribed under Rule 141, Rules of Court, all judges and clerks of court are hereby reminded that the intention of the Resolution of the Court en banc dated 21 September 2004 in A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC is to suspend the new rates of legal fees on motions prescribed under Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 (Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court).
Provisions on motions for the old and new rates/rules are presented for better understanding:
|
OLD RATES/RULES |
NEW RATES/RULES |
|
Section 20, Administrative Circular No. 3-2000 dated 15 June 2000: |
Section 21, Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 dated 20 August 2004: |
|
|
GF |
JDF |
|
JDF |
SAJF |
|
(b) For motions for postponements after completion of the pre-trial stage, one hundred pesos (P100.00) for the first, and an additional fifty (P50.00) pesos for every postponement thereafter based on that for the immediately preceding motion; Provided, however, that no fee shall be imposed when the motion is found to be based on justifiable and compelling reason; |
|
All for JDF |
(b) For motions for postponement (whether verbal or written) after completion of the pre-trial stage: |
|
|
|
|
P100.00 |
P100.00 |
|||
|
1) TWO HUNDRED (P200.00) PESOS for the first, and an additional FIFTY (P50.00) PESOS for every motion for postponement thereafter based on that for the immediately preceding motion. |
P50.00 |
|
|||
|
2) For any other motion, TWO HUNDRED (P200.00) PESOS; |
|
P200.00 |
The old rule has no provision for the payment of fees on other motions. Hence, only motions for postponement or resetting after completion of the pre-trial stage, whether oral or written, are to be assessed with a fee of one hundred pesos (PHP100.00) for the first motion, and an additional fifty pesos (PHP50.00) for every postponement thereafter based on the immediately preceding motion (both for each case even if consolidated).
The provision that no fees shall be collected when the motion has been found to be based on justifiable and compelling reason was intentionally omitted in the new rules. Therefore, all motions for postponement or resetting shall be assessed with a fee regardless of the reason/s, except when the party is exempt from the payment of fees.
Strict compliance is enjoined.
Considering that the implementation of the new rule with respect to motions has been suspended as early as August 16, 2004, respondent erroneously collected P200.00 for every 'other motion' filed by the clients of Millora & Associates Law Offices from 2010 to 2011.
Significantly, the audit showed that the fees collected by respondent were remitted to the SAJF:
Relative to A.M. No. P-17-3719 (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Mr. Joseph T. Lavarias, Officer-in-Charge/Clerk of Court [OIC-COC], Regional Trial Court [RTC], Branch [45], San Jose, Occidental Mindoro) [Formerly A.M. No. 14-8-2412-RTC (Re: Failure of Mr. Joseph T. Lavarias, OIC-COC, RTC Branch 45, San Jose Mindoro Occidental, to comply with the Memorandum dated February 17, 2012 of the Office of the Court Administrator)], the following collections were found remitted to the SAJF account, to wit:
|
Date |
Official Receipt No. |
Amount |
Date Remitted |
|
1/14/2010 |
1774906 |
PHP2,200.00 |
1/15/2010 |
|
1/14/2010 |
1774907 |
5,800.00 |
1/15/2010 |
|
1/14/2010 |
1774908 |
4,000.00 |
1/15/2010 |
|
1/14/2010 |
1774909 |
4,200.00 |
1/15/2010 |
|
1/14/2010 |
1774910 |
400.00 |
1/15/2010 |
|
6/25/2010 |
5752027 |
3,000.00 |
6/25/2010 |
|
9/06/2010 |
5752899 |
14,000.00 |
9/07/2010 |
|
5/28/2011 |
7988966 |
17,000.00 |
5/27/2011 |
|
6/09/2011 |
7989199 |
17,000.00 |
6/13/2011 |
|
|
|
PHP63,800.0036 |
|
Accordingly, the total amount remitted should be refunded to the clients of Millora & Associates Law Offices in accordance with the pertinent rules on the refund of filing fees. 37
Going now to respondent's liability, it is clear that he failed to comply with the existing rules in imposing the P200.00 fee. For this, he should be administratively sanctioned.
Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel 38 mandates that "[c]ourt personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly x x x." Proper performance of duty includes compliance with the rules issued by this Court. Noncompliance or violation constitutes negligence in the performance of duties.
Negligence may either be gross or simple, as distinguished below:
Gross neglect of duty is defined as "[n]egligence characterized by want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men [or women] never fail to give to their own property." In contrast, simple neglect of duty is the failure of an employee or official to give proper attention to a task expected of him or her, signifying a "disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference." 39 (Citations omitted) aDSIHc
Here, We find respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty for failing to comply with the existing rules on payment of fees. He clearly failed to give proper attention to a task expected of him and was remiss in his duties as OIC-COC. Nevertheless, his act did not exhibit the want of slightest care or willfulness that would make him liable for gross neglect. Rather, it was the result of his reliance on A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC dated July 20, 2004, which rule was opined by the executive judge to be in effect at the time of respondent's collection. 40 Given that his position before assuming the post of OIC-COC is Legal Researcher II, it is not difficult to see why respondent adhered to the opinion of the executive judge.
Under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense. 41 However, the Court may impose the penalty of fine instead of suspension, 42 and may consider mitigating circumstances in the imposition of the final penalty. 43 Here, We note that all throughout the proceedings, respondent remained consistent in his explanations. He exhibited no sign of bad faith, as recognized by the OCA. 44 Respondent also offered his sincerest apologies to Millora & Associates Law Offices and to this Court. 45 Considering all the circumstances, We find the penalty of fine in the amount of P10,000.00 reasonable.
Finally, We remind all clerks of court of their duty to keep abreast of all the rules issued by this Court. Such rules should never be treated lightly and should be complied with promptly and completely. The effective and efficient administration of justice demands nothing less than a faithful adherence to these rules. 46
WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS MR. JOSEPH T. LAVARIAS, Officer-in-Charge/Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 45, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, GUILTY of SIMPLE NEGLECT OF DUTY, for which he is FINED in the amount of P10,000.00.
The matter of refund of filing fees is REFERRED to the Office of the Court Administrator pursuant to the pertinent rules on refund of filing fees.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 6-7, 22-31.
2. Any motion other than a motion for postponement, as referred to in A.M. No. 00-2-01-SC, or the "Amendments to Rule 141 (Legal Fees) of the Rules of Court" (March 1, 2000).
3.Rollo, pp. 6, 23-24. Millora & Associates Law Offices provided the following information on the alleged collections:
On Petitions and Motions:
January 14, 2010
O.R. No. 1774906 A — Php2,200.00
O.R. No. 1774907 A — Php5,800.00
O.R. No. 1774(9)08 A — Php4,000.00
O.R. No. 1774(9)09 A — Php4,200.00
O.R. No. 1774(9)10 A — Php400.00
On Motions for Determination of Probable Cause:
June 25, 2010
O.R. No. 5752027 A — Php3,000.00
September 6, 2010
O.R. No. 5752899 A — Php14,000.00
On Motion/Joint Reconsideration and Manifestation:
May 28, 2011
O.R. No. 7988966 A — Php17,000.00
On Motion to Reduce Bail:
June 9, 2011
O.R. No. 7989199 A — Php17,000.00 (rollo, pp. 23-24).
4.Id. at 23-24. This figure is arrived at by adding the amounts allegedly paid by Millora & Associates Law Offices in its December 5, 2011 letter.
5.Id. at 33-34.
6.Id. at 32.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 130-132, 145.
9.Id. at 131.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 132.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 130.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 155-156. The July 10, 2017 Resolution adopted the recommendations of Court Administrator Midas Marquez and Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva in their December 29, 2016 Memorandum (rollo, pp. 148-153).
19.Id. at 156.
20.Id. at 163-164.
21.Id. at 194-199.
22.Id. at 197.
23.Id. at 195.
24.Id. at 198.
25.Id. at 191-192.
26.Id. at 208.
27.Id. at 207. Other reasons include: (1) that the certifications submitted by respondent are not proof that the fees he collected from the clients of Millora & Associates Law Offices were indeed deposited or that he is already free of any accountability; (2) that there is a pending financial audit; and (3) that the Fiscal Monitoring Division issued a certification stating that respondent is not yet cleared of his monetary accountabilities.
28.Id. at 208.
29.Id., unpaginated.
30. Entitled "Proposed Revision of Rule 141, Revised Rules of Court Legal Fees." The guidelines were issued through Administrative Circular No. 35-04, with subject "Guidelines in the Allocation of the Legal Fees Collected under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended, between the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund and the Judiciary Development Fund" (August 12, 2004).
31.Rollo, p. 10.
32. A.M. No. 00-2-01-SC, or the "Amendments to Rule 141 (Legal Fees) of the Rules of Court" (March 1, 2000). The guidelines were issued through Administrative Circular No. 3-2000, with subject "Re: Guidelines in the Allocation of the Legal Fees Collected under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as amended, between the General Fund and the Judiciary Development Fund" (June 15, 2000).
33. A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC dated September 21, 2004.
34. With subject "Docket Fees for Compulsory Counterclaims."
35. With subject "Clarification on the Suspension of New Rates of the Legal Fees on Motions Pursuant to the Resolution of the Court En Banc dated 21 September 2004 in A.M. No. 04-2-04-SC."
36.Rollo, unpaginated. We note that the total amount indicated (P63,800.00) does not correspond to the sum of the individual items (P67,600.00). The correct amount should be P67,600.00, as cross-checked with the total amount claimed by Millora & Associates Law Offices and as reflected on the copies of the official receipts on record.
37.See Section 8 of OCA Circular No. 88-2007 (September 14, 2007).
38.Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC (May 15, 2004).
39.Office of the Ombudsman v. Espina, 807 Phil. 529, 543 (2017).
40.Rollo, p. 132. See also the August 24, 2010 letter of Executive Judge Jose S. Jacinto Jr. (rollo, pp. 19-20).
41. Rule 10, Section 46 (D) (1).
42.Vda. de Feliciano v. Rivera, 695 Phil. 441, 452 (2012), citing Memorandum Circular No. 30, or the "Guidelines in the Application of Penalties in Administrative Cases" (July 20, 1989).
43. Memorandum Circular No. 30, supra.
44.Rollo, p. 150.
45.Id. at 132.
46.Alday v. Cruz, Jr., 426 Phil. 385, 390 (2002).