S Casca Scas Casca SC Sac As

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
Sheriffs/Process Servers 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 SHERIFFS 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 OFFICERS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS
By: Dexter S. Ilagan

1
Officer-In-Charge
Fiscal Monitoring Division
Court Management Office, OCA
Supreme Court
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.3REFUND 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
1 Annex A
2 Annex B
2
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 Courts 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: 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.
3
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.
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:
4
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 COURTS 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, 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
5
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 Carandangs 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.
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
6
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 courts 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).
7
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 sheriffs 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 peoples
8
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. 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:
Saddis 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.
9
By these deplorable acts of gross dishonesty, grave

misconduct and gross neglect of duty, Saddi has, no
doubt, undermined the peoples 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, 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 COURTS 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 ones 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.
10
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 COURTS

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 courts funds, revenues, records,
property and premises.
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 teams 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.
11
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. 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 courts 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.
12
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.
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 courts 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 latters place, court
interpreter Bonus, this Court cannot accept the uniform
13
excuse that they proffer, namely, Garillos 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.
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:
* 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.
14
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 Cashiers 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 Cashiers 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
Cashiers 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, certain
documents and other attachments need to be
15
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)Sheriffs Trust Fund (STF)
Statement of Withdrawn and Unwithdrawn Sheriff Trust Fund,
with Liquidation Column5
Statement of Estimated Travel Expenses 6 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)
3 Annex C
4 Annex D
5 Annex E
6 Annex F
7 Annex G
16
(6)Mediation Fund (MF)

(7)Victims Compensation Fund (VCF)
(8)Land Registration Authority (LRA)
(9)Legal Research Fund (LRF)
(10) Notarial Register Fund (NRF)
BANK ACCOUNT/
BASIS/IMPLEMENTING EFFECTIVI WHERE & WHEN
# FUNDS COMPOSITION
GUIDELINES TY TO SUBMIT
REPORTS
1. Judiciary PD No. 1949/ Oct 1, 1984 Accounting 1. Allocated fees prescribed in the
Developme AM No. 35-2004 & Division Rule 141 of the Rules of Court;
nt Fund OCA Circular No. 113- FMO, OCA, SC 2. 10% Service Fee per annum of
Interest Earned on deposits in the
(JDF) 2004
Fiduciary Fund.
On the 10th of the
following month
2. Special RA No. 9227/ Nov 11, Accounting 1. Allocated fees prescribed in the
Allowance AM No. 35-2004 & 2003 Division Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as
for the OCA Circular No. 113- FMO, OCA, SC amended;
2. Court Fines
Judiciary 2004
Fund (SAJF) On the 10th of the
following month
3. General AM No. 35-2004 & Accounting 1. Confiscated Bail bonds;
Fund (GF) OCA Circular No. 113- Division 2. Interest Earned on Bail Bond
2004 & AM No. 05-3-35- FMO, OCA, SC Deposits, net of 10% Service
Fee per annum.
SC
On the 10th of the
following month
4. Mediation OCA Circular No. 51-2011/ Aug 16, LBP SA No. 3472- 1. Complaint or Answer
Fund (MF) OCA Circular No. 58-2007 2004 1000-08 with mediatable permissive
counterclaim or cross claim,
complaint in intervention, third-
Financial &
party complaint, forth party
Management complaint, etc. in civil cases, a
Office, PHILJA, SC Petition, an Opposition, and a
Creditors Claim in Special
On the 10th of the Proceedings;
following month 2. Complaint/Informatio
n 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/Informatio
n 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 OCA Circular No. 50-95 & From the VARIOUS 1. Cash Bonds;
Fund (FF) OCA Circular No. 113- start of Accounting 2. Consignations (Rental Deposits;
2004 operation Division Deposit for Expropriations;
Redemptioners Bond)
FMO, OCA, SC
3. Supersedeas Bonds;
4. Cash Deposits in Election Protest
On the 10th of the (Revisors Fee & P25,000 for the
following month cost of bringing and storing the
PCOS & other machines/election
paraphernalia)
5. P1,000 deposits for
Sheriffs/Process Servers Fund (if
17
cannot maintain the required

maintaining balance of LBP)
6. Sheriffs/Pr AM No. 35-2004 & Aug 16, VARIOUS P1,000 deposit to defray the actual
ocess OCA Circular No. 113- 2004 Accounting travel expenses of the Sheriff,
Servers 2004 Division Process Server or other Court-
Trust Fund FMO, OCA, SC Authorized Persons in the service of
(STF) summons, subpoena and other court
On the 10th of the processes.
following month
7. Victims RA No. 7309/ Mar 1, LBP CA No.0592- P5.00 collected for the filing of every
Compensati OCA Circular No. 59-94 & 2000 1022-42 complaint or petition initiating
on Fund AM No. 35-2004 ordinary or special civil action or
(VCF) Financial & special proceeding, including civil
Management actions impliedly instituted with
Service, DOJ criminal actions under Rule 111 of
the Revised Rule of Criminal
Quarterly Basis Procedure where a filing fee is
likewise collected.
8. Legal RA No. 3870, as amended Dec 26, LBP SA No. 1461- one percent (1%) of the filing fee
Research by PD No. 1856/ 1982 0927-36 imposed, but in no case lower than
Fund (LRF) OCA Circular No. 134- UP Law Center, Twenty Pesos, in the case of the
2003 Bocobo Hall, appellate courts and the additional
Diliman, QC 1101 amount of one percent (1%) of the
filing fee imposed, but in no case
Quarterly Basis lower than Ten Pesos in the case of
all other courts, including all
administrative or special courts, as
well as agencies or tribunals
exercising quasi-judicial functions
and those enumerated in Letter of
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- Fees payable to the Commissioner of Land
Registratio OCA Circular No. 24-2003 2223-86 Registration.
n Authority
(CADASTRA Chief Accountant,
L FUND) Land Registration
Authority
Quarterly Basis
10 Notarial AM No. 02-8-13-SC/ Nov 16, LBP SA No. 3472- Price of Notarial Register Book
. Register OCA Circular No. 157- 2006 1000-32 ordered from the Supreme Court.
Fund (NRF) 2006 Accounting
Division
FMO, OCA, SC
On the 10th of the

following month
MEDIATION FUND (MF)
18
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:
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:
19
(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.
SHERIFFS/PROCESS SERVERS FUND
Under Paragraph 2, Sec. 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as

amended, the Sheriffs/Process Servers 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
20
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 SHERIFFS/PROCESS

SERVERS 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;
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
8 Annex U
21
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
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:
7.2.1Written justification for staying beyond one

(1) full day.
22
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
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
9 Annex V
23
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)
b. Machine validated deposit slips, if collections are deposited
with the LBP, or certified true copies of the official receipts
10 Annex AA
24
issued by the Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer, if

collections are deposited with the Treasurers 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 10th 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
Sheriffs 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:
11 Annex AB
25
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;
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 REMARKS

EFFECTIVITY
Administrative November 2, 1990 a) The applicable funds are JDF
Circular No. 31-90 & GF;
b) Up to Section 19;
12 Annex I
26
c) No Provisions for MF, VCF &

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

TE 1ST COURTS
SECTI COURTS LEVEL (MeTC,
PARTICULARS
ON (SC, CA, COURTS MTCC,
SB & (RTC) MTC,
CTA) MCTC)
13 General Provisions
4 Graduated Rates
Fees paid by Advancing
5
Party
6 Fees of Bar Candidates
7 Graduated Rates
8 Graduated Rates
9 20 General Provisions
21 Others Fees
22 Government Exempt
C. SUSPENDED PROVISIONS:
27
Court En Banc Resolution Dated September 21,

13
2004 , 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.
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 CASHIERS CHECK OR MANAGERS
13 Annex J
14 Annex K
28
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)Cashiers Check
(c) Managers 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.2DOCKET FILING FEES CAN BE PAID BY PERSONAL,

COMPANY OR MANAGERS 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
(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 managers check, provided that, if the amount exceeds
Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.00), it shall be paid in
managers 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
15 Annex M
16 Annex N
29
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 SPECIAL SPECIAL

NOT AN
SEC. RATES CIVIL CIVIL PROCEEDI NOTES
ACTION
ACTIONS ACTIONS NGS
Damage Suit,
Graduat
7(a) Sum of Money,
ed Rates
etc
All Other Actions Interpleader
not Involving Declaratory
Property Relief
- Relief from Certiorari,
Judgement Prohibition
P2,000.0
7(b) - Annulment/ and
0
Recission of Mandamus
Contract Quo Warranto
- Revival of Beyond
Judgment, etc. pecuniary
estimation
Extra-
Graduat Judicial
7(c )
ed Rates Foreclosu
re
Allowance of
Wills
Granting
Letters of
Administrat
Graduat
7(d) ion
ed Rates
Appointment
of
Guardians/T
rustees,
etc.
7(e) P10,000. Naturalizatio
00 n
Acquiring
30
Citizenship
Adoption If the
(P2,000/P1 proceedi
0,000) ngs
Support involve
(P500) separatio
Annulment of n of
Marriage/ property,
Declaration an
of Nullity/ additiona
Legal l fee
Separation correspo
(P3,000) nding to
Custody of the value
Minors of the of
(P1,000) the
Various
7(f) property,
rates
an
additiona
l fee
correspo
nding to
the value
of the
property
involved
shall be
collected
, in
accordan
ce with
Sec 7(d).
Writ of
Habeas
Corpus
Rescission/
Revocation
of Adoption
Termination
of
7(g) P500.00 Guardiansh
ip
Change of
Name
Cancellation/
Correction
of Entries
in the Civil
Registry
Solemnizat New
ion rates
were
suspend
ed, OCA
Cir. No.
96-
7(h) P300.00 2009,
including
Motions
&
Compuls
ory
countercl
aims
P2,000.0 Commissio Notar
7(i)
0 n fee y Public
7(j) P10/pag Certifying
e copies of
31
any
paper,
record,
decree,
judgment
Courts Comm
Commiss ission on
ion all
money,
excludin
g
2% x
cashbon
P4,000
7(k) d coming
1.5% x
into the
>P4K
clerks
hands by
law, rule,
order or
writ of
court
P3,000.0 Appeals
7(l)
0
Issuance of Wheth
Provisional er asked
Remedies thru
motion
7(m) P500.00
or
included
in the
pleading
Clearance/
7(n) P50.00 Certificat
ion
Notary Servic
Charge es of
7(o) P200.00
Notary
Public
Other Any
services other
services
7(p) P200.00 not
provided
in this
section
F. SECTION 8, RULE 141, RULES OF COURT:
32
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 Pias 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
33
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;
(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
34
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 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)
17 Annex AC
35
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 courts 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:
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
36
(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 Attorneys 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
37
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 SHERIFFS 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 sheriffs 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 sheriffs 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 sheriffs expenses (as found in second
paragraph of Section 10); that the amount required to defray
the sheriffs expenses is clearly not covered by the
exemption; they are neither considered as court and sheriffs fees
22 Annex T
38
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 sheriffs expenses under Section
10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court in collection actions
filed with the Small Claims Court of Makati City.
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
L E G A L F E E S F O R M
CASE NO. _____________
RECEIVED this ________ day of _____________, 19___ the

following payments:
1. General Fund
a. Clerk of Court
General Fund P________________ O.R.
b. Sheriffs
No.____________
General Fund
P________________
O.R.
No.____________
2. Judiciary
Development P________________ O.R.
Fund No.____________
3. Fiduciary Fund P________________ O.R.
No.____________
4. Sheriffs Trust P________________ O.R.
Fund No.____________
5. Legal Research
Fund Fee P________________ O.R.
No.____________
6. Land P________________ O.R.
23 Annex H
39
Registration Fee No.____________

7. Victims
Compensation P________________ O.R.
Fee No.____________
Total: ______________________
Paid By: Received By:

______________________ ___________________
(Note:______________________________________________)
B. COMPUTATION:
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 P 190,000.00 P 500,000.00
damages
Summon to serve 1 1
ANSWER TO PROBLEM No. 1:

1.a. For 1st Level Courts:
Municipal Trial Court - ____________________
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.
40
1111111
8. VCF 5.0 O.R. No.
0 2222221
Total Docket P 4,232.00
Fees:

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

Fees
Total claims, plus damages P P P 893.00
Sec. 8(a) 2,500.00 1,607.00
Summon to serve Sec. 10(a) 200.00 144.00 56.00
Total Filing fee P P P 949.00
2,700.00 1,751.00
*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:

Regional Trial Court - _____________________
CASE NO. 11-00001

following 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 5.0 O.R. No.
0 2222221
41

Fees:

__________________ ___________________
(Note:______________________________________________)

Fees
Total claims, + damages P P P
Sec. 7(a)** 6,500.00 3,850.00 2,650.00
Summon to serve Sec. 10(a) 200.00 144.00 56.00
Total Filing Fee P P P
6,700.00 3,994.00 2,706.00
**Total claims, damages TOTAL For SAJF For JDF

Sec. 7(a) Fees
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; 2,000.00 1,200.00 800.00
[ratio: 12:20, for SAJ & 8:20 for
JDF]
Total P 6,500.00 P P
3,850.00 2,650.00
*LRF COMPUTATION:
Particulars Amount
LRF Fee P 67.00
PROBLEM NO. 2
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 Corporation filed a collection
Entry Case against Sps. Dela suit against Meralco in the
Cruz with damages. The RTC. The prayer of the
damages prayed for totalled to complaint shows a total
P550,000.00. claims of P4,000,000.00.
42
ANSWER TO PROBLEM No. 2:

2.a. For 1st Level Courts:
Municipal Trial Court - ____________________
CASE NO. 11-00001

following 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
Fees:

__________________ ___________________

Fees
Fee under Sec. 8(c) P 500.00 P P 140.00
360.00
Summon Sec. 10(a) 200.00 144.00 56.00
Damages Prayed Sec. 8(a)** 7,500.0 4,757 2,743
0 .00 .00
8,200.00 5,261.00 2,939.00
**Damages Prayed Sec. 8(a) TOTAL For SAJF For JDF

Fees
Not more than P400,000.00 (Sec P 5,000.00 P P 1,850.00
8(a) #5) 3,150.00
Jump back to Sec. 8(a) #3 2,500.00 1,607. 893.00
00
Total P 7,500.00 P P
4,757.00 2,743.00
*LRF COMPUTATION:
Particulars Amount
43
LRF Fee P 82.00
2.b. For 2nd Level Courts:

Regional Trial Court - _____________________
CASE NO. 11-00001

following payments:
1. SAJF P O.R. No.

45,994.00 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
Fees:

__________________ ___________________
(Note:______________________________________________)

Fees
Fees under Sec. 7(a)** P P P
76,500.00 45,850.00 30,650.00
Summon to serve Sec. 10(a) 200. 14 56
00 4.00 .00
76,700.00 45,994.00 30,706.00
**Fees under Sec. 7(a): TOTAL For SAJF For JDF

Fees
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
44
((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 P P
76,500.00 45,850.00 30,650.00
*LRF COMPUTATION:
Particulars Amount
LRF Fee P 767.00
IX. RULES OF PROCEDURE ON CORPORATE REHABILITATION
The Rules of Procedure on Corporate Rehabilitation (2008), A.M.

No. 00-8-10-SC24, 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
24 Annex W
45
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 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
25 Annex L
46
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
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)
26 Annex X
47
(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
BAMARVEMPCOs bid to be exempted from the payment
of all court and sheriffs 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 BAMARVEMPCOs 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 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
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
48
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. 18), publication in a newspaper
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 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)
49
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 sheriffs 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
29 Annex Y
50
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, 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
redemptioners 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;
30 Annex Z
51
(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.
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 - ____________________
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. _______
-
Fees:
52

__________________ ___________________
(Note:______________________________________________)

Fees
Fee under Sec. 7 (c) P P 500.00 P 500.00
1,000.00
Posting & Publication Fee Sec. 150 73 77
10(h) .00 .00 .00
Total docket fees P P 573.00 P 577.00
1,150.00
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.
2) How much should Mr. Benie Cheng need to pay
to get the Certificate of Sale?
ANSWER TO No. 2:
FILE NO. 11-0005

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

__________________ ___________________
53
(Note:______________________________________________)
COMPUTATION: TOTAL For SAJF For JDF

Fees
Sheriffs Commission - Sec. 10 P P P
(l)* 4,600.00 3,080.00 1,520.00
Certificate of Sale Fee Sec. 500 300 200.
21(d) .00 .00 00
Total P P P
5,100.00 3,380.00 1,720.00
* Sheriffs Commission TOTAL For SAJF For JDF

Computation: Fees
P4,000 x 5.5% (ratio is 4:5.5 & P 220.00 P 160.00 P 60.00
1.5:5.5)
P146,000 x 3% (ratio is 2:3 & 4,380. 2,920. 1,460.
1:3) 00 00 00
Total P P P
4,600.0 3,080.0 1,520.00
0 0
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 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:
FILE NO. 11-0006

54

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
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
55
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 1,400 th 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 attorneys 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
56
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 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);
57
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:
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/Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs Trust Fund Collections, a Certification and Explanation to that
effect (with courts 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 Treasurers 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
58
Officer-In-Charge
Fiscal Monitoring Division
Court Management Office, OCA
Supreme Court
59

S Casca Scas Casca SC Sac As

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

S Casca Scas Casca SC Sac As

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COLLECTION OF FEES by DSI

XI. SMALL CLAIMS

By: Dexter S. Ilagan

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION RULE words used in statutes

I.1. ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF DOCKET FEES ARE

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 42-20051, dated April 22, 2005, in relation

(a) Questions relating to the assessment and collection of

(b)Clarifying that the OCA has no authority to determine

I.2.SUBSTITUTION OF PAYMENTS OF DOCKET FEES FROM ONE

OCA CIRCULAR NO. 95-20102, dated July 12, 2010, prohibits

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

In a resolution of the Second Division, A.M. No. 09-2-67-RTC (RE:

that as a matter of policy, the Court looks with disfavour

I.4 PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF EXHIBITS SHALL BE

Administrative Order No. 170-2008, dated November

I.5 FINES IMPOSED IN VIOLATION OF MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE

In OCA CIRCULAR No. 10-2002, dated February

xxx (1) CONSIDER the fines paid for violations of

All Clerks of Court are hereby directed to remit to the

I.6 NOT ALL NET INTEREST EARNED AND CONFISCATED BOND

In a Court en banc resolution dated January 18, 2011,

6. Unclaimed fiduciary funds of private parties,

7. The amounts previously remitted by the Court to the

II. FUNCTIONS, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLERK OF

Under the Supreme Court Manual for the Clerks of Court,

(1) the administrative officer of the Court under the

(9)Represents the Court in administrative dealings with the

The Supreme Court ruled on the functions and duties of

A) CLERK OF COURTS FUNCTIONS/DUTIES ARE NOT

BSP v. Executive Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas, et. al,

The COC allowed the withdrawal and release from

COC claimed that she was not aware that the

garnished and identified as belonging to parties against

The SC ruled that the disputed funds were clearly

The Supreme Court held that:

Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Sheriff xxx

The Clerk of Court was declared guilty of simple

B) CLERK OF COURT SHOULD EXERCISE SERVICE WITH

OCA v. Atty. Fermin M. Ofilas and Ms. Aranzazu V.

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

Atty. Ofilas predecessor; and Olga A. Sacramento, the

Ms. Baltazar was in charge of all funds collected and

During the cash count of the auditors, the amount of

Accountable forms such as triplicate copies, official

The official cash books were not properly

There were discrepancies and irregularities in the

An aggregate total of P279,200.00 confiscated cash

Atty. Ofilas was found to have deposited the amount

Clerk IV and former Cash Clerk Ms. Baltazar readily

With respect to records of extra-judicial foreclosure of

A significant number of check payments were

Atty. Ofilas refuted the charges against him. He

The Supreme Court held that:

No less than the Constitution mandates that

confidence in the Judiciary. Verily, the image of a

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

Court personnel tasked with collections of court

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

C) CLERK OF COURT SHOULD NOT ISSUE HANDWRITTEN

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

Saddis act of issuing a handwritten receipt for the

By these deplorable acts of gross dishonesty, grave

The Clerk of Court was held GUILTY of Gross