1 - Castillo Vs Buencillo

Castillo vs.
Buencillo
Facts
• Dinna Castillo was private complainant in Criminal Case No. 9060-SP for Estafa entitled, "People
vs. Ronnie Zabella and Angelita Zabella," before the RTC in Laguna
• During its hearing on May 31, 1995, the accused offered P70,000.00 as settlement for the civil
aspect of the case and Castillo was reluctant to accept the amount for being insufficient, prompting
the counsel for the accused to suggest that the money be left with the court
• The judge ordered herein respondent Zenaida Buencillo, OIC-Branch Clerk of Court, to receive the
amount which she deposited in her personal bank account Homeowner's Savings and Loan Bank to
avoid being lost if kept in her office
• After the criminal case was dismissed for lack of interest, Zabella settled giving postdated checks
as payment including the P70,000 already deposited in court.
• Castillo then requested Buencillo to give her back money and the latter remitted this by way of a
withdrawal slip authorization the amount of P50,000 retaining the P20,000.
• This triggered the instant administrative complaint filed by Castillo against Buencillos for alleged
serious misconduct and dishonesty
• Respondent contends that the P20,000 was voluntarily left by the complainant, along with 3
postdated checks as this was as payment for the paluwagan system Castillo had participated in
• Complainant, however, contends that respondent refused to give the P20,000.00, and that
complainant accepted the withdrawal slip of P50,000.00 because it was better than receiving
nothing. She claimed she tried to collect the amount several times, but respondent still refused to
hand over the remaining P20,000.00. Complainant's lawyer sent respondent a demand letter on
January 17, 1996, but the latter ignored the same. Complainant filed an administrative complaint
on January 29, 1996 against respondent for alleged serious misconduct and dishonesty.
• In addition to this, the complainant filed a supplemental complaint, alleging that respondent has
been operating a canteen within the premises of the Dizon Hall of Justice in San Pablo City since
1993, moving it beside the Hall of Justice in 1996 and stealing electricity and water from the city
government through illegal connections which is in violation of Supreme Court Administrative
Circular No. 3-92 on the prohibition against the use of the Halls of Justice for residential or
commercial purposes.
Issues
• Whether or not respondent indeed committed misconduct and dishonesty
1. Whether or not respondent may validly deposit the P70,000.00 in her personal bank account
2. Whether or not respondent may retain the P20,000.00 and apply the same to offset the
paluwagan debt of complainant to the former
3. Whether or not paluwagan is gambling
4. Whether or not the operation of the canteen mentioned in the second complaint is violative
of Supreme Court Circular 3-92.
Held
1. No. Concerning the deposit of the P70,000.00 in respondent's personal bank account, the Court
believes that even if this were done in good faith, still it was not appropriate and without
justification. Every public officer is bound to exercise prudence and caution in the discharge of his
duties, acting primarily for the benefit of the public. If the office steel cabinet had no lock,
respondent should have informed the presiding judge of the circumstance so that proper
arrangements could have been made. If it were at all necessary to deposit the money in a bank, it
should have been made in a bank account in the name of the court (Adm. Cir. 13-92, March 1,
1992), the amount being in the nature of a fiduciary fund. The interest earned on the deposit
should have accrued to the general fund of the government instead of accruing to the personal
account of respondent, to the detriment of the former.
• However, respondent's act does not constitute misappropriation. Complainant is in error

when she contends that the P70,000.00 given by the accused Zabella to the court turned
into property in custodia legis, making respondent liable for misappropriation of funds.
• There is a distinction between property in custody and property in custodia legis.

i. Custody of things means to have them in charge of safekeeping, and merely implies
temporary control; and does not connote domination or supremacy of authority
(People vs. Diaz, 06740-CR, April 20, 1970, cited in F.B. Moreno, Philippine Law
Dictionary, 3rd edition)
ii. Custodia legis must have been lawfully seized and taken by legal process and
authority, and placed in the possession of a public officer such as a sheriff, or an
officer of the court empowered to hold it such as a receiver (Don vs. Moya, SP-
14833, March 10, 1983, cited in F.B. Moreno, Philippine Law Dictionary, 3rd edition)
• The P70,000.00 was deposited in court voluntarily by a private person, the not pursuant to
a seizure order by the court. Although it was in the custody of the court, it was not
in custodia legis and never became public fund. There was, therefore, no misappropriation.
2. No. There may, indeed have been an understanding between complainant and respondent that the
P20,000.00 would be used to offset complainant's monetary obligation to respondent in
the paluwagan.
• However, respondent should be reminded that her private dealings and businesses should
not be mixed with her public duties. While private individuals may normally offset their
obligations upon agreement, public officials hold a different position in society and must
always bear in mind that their actions reflect their status as such. Public officials and
employees should always uphold public interest over and above personal interest (Section
4[a], R.A. 6713, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees).
i. They are enjoined to respond to the call of their duties with the highest degree of
dedication often beyond their own interests (Re: Report of Senior Staff Officer
Antonina A. Soria, 299 SCRA 63 [1998]).
• It is for this reason that the Court agrees with the recommendation of the Office of Court
Administrator that the P20,000.00 be returned to complainant, without prejudice to
respondent's right to file an appropriate action to recover complainant's obligation to
respondent.
3. No. Paluwagan is not a form of gambling or lottery, it is a scheme where the members agree to
put their money in a common fund, each one of them receiving the total amount collected from all
the members for a given period at a specified time designated as their particular schedule to
receive the same (Evaluation of the Office of the Court Administrator, August 17, 2000, p. 11). It
does not involve wagering, gambling, or betting penalized under the Revised Penal Code (Record,
p. 112).
4. No. No direct evidence was presented that a canteen was operated by respondent within the Halls
of Justice. Administrative Circular 3-92 is not applicable.
Respondent does not seem to be directly liable for the violations or irregularities committed. However, she
cannot avoid responsibility for her acts and still needs to be disciplined. Public office is a public trust (Sec.
1, Art. XI, 1987 Constitution). Public officers are servants of the people, not their rulers. They should be
examples of integrity, uprightness and honesty.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds respondent ZENAIDA BUENCILLO guilty of simple misconduct for the
following acts:
1) depositing amount entrusted to her by the court in her personal bank account instead of in an
account under the court's name; and
2) attending to personal matters during court hours, preventing her to perform her functions as
OIC-Branch Clerk of Court and Legal Researcher effectively
for which she is fined in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). She is further ordered to return
to complainant the amount of P20,000.00 plus interest earned from May 31, 1995 until its date of return.
Needless to say, this comes with a warning that a similar infraction will warrant a more severe penalty.

1 - Castillo Vs Buencillo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 - Castillo Vs Buencillo

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

1 - Castillo Vs Buencillo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Castillo vs.

• However, respondent's act does not constitute misappropriation. Complainant is in error

• There is a distinction between property in custody and property in custodia legis.

You might also like