Clerk of Court Manual (Digest)

I. INTRODUCTION
Assessment and Collection of Docket Fees Being Judicial in Nature; Substitution of
Docket Fees Not Allowed; Refund of Filling Fees Not Allowed; Proceeds from Sale of
Exhibits Shall Accrue to JDF; Fines Imposed in Violation of Ordinances Shall Accrue to the
Issuer; and Net Interest Earned and Confiscated Bond Shall Not Totally Accrue to GF.
II. FUNCTIONS, DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CLERK OF COURT/ ACCOUNTABLE
OFFICERS
III. COURT FOUNDS
All Court Funds and Its Particulars; Mediation Fund; Sheriff's/ Process Server's Fund.
IV. MONTHLY REPORTS OF COLLECTIONS, DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS
V. RULE 141 OF THE RULES OF COURT AND ASSESSMENT AND COLLECTION OF DOCKET
FEES
Suspended Provisions; Related Sections; Estafa Cases; Procedural Guidelines for BP
Blg. 22.
VI. THOSE EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF DOCKET FEES
VII. P1,000.00 DEPOSIT (STF) WITH THE COURT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE SHERIFF'S FEES
VIII. ASSESSMENTT AND COMPUTATION OF DOCKET FEES
IX. CORPORATE REHABILITATION
X. EXTRA-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE
Court
Exercises.

procedures;

Related

Court

Issuances

and

Clarification;

Computation

XI. SMALL CLAIMS

XII. ELECTION CONTEST/ PROTEST
XIII. RETIREMENT/ RESIGNATION/ PROMOTION/ TRANSFER
XIV. CHECKLIST OF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FINANCIAL AUDIT OF THE ACCOUNTABLE
OFFICER'S BOOK OF ACCOUNTS

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.
In OCA CIRCULAR NO. 42-2005, dated April 22, 2005 the Court resolved, upon
recommendation of the Office of the Court Adminitrator, 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 properor correct under applicable rules, thhe same being a judicial matter.
I.2.SUBSTITUTION OF PAYMENTS OF DOCKET FEES FROM ONE COURT COURT
STATION TO ANOTHER IS NOT ALLOWED.
I.3.REFUND OF FILING FEES PAID TO THE COURT IS NOT ALLOWED.
In a resolution of the Second Division, A.M.No. 09-2-67-RTC (RE: Request for the
refund of filing fees paid to RTC, Dumaguete City, in Civil Case No. 08-14250),
where the RTC Dumaguete City dismissed motion requesting the approval of
refund of the filing fees paid in Civil Casse No. 08-14250 citing AM No. 05-92566-MeTC, where the court ruled that it is only thhe 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 disfavor 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 whe 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 manhours used in handling each cas. The payment of said fees thereforecannot 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 JUDICIAL 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.

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 Jnuary 18, 2011, concerning A.M. No. 05-3-35SC (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 Fund 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