View full case

DINNA CASTILLO v. ZENAIDA C. BUENCILLO

FACTS:

Dinna Castillo was the private complainant in a criminal case for estafa. During a hearing, the accused offered P70,000.00 as settlement for the civil aspect of the case. The presiding judge ordered the respondent, Zenaida Buencillo, the Branch Clerk of Court, to receive the amount from the accused. Fearful that the money might be lost in the office steel cabinet which had no lock, respondent deposited the money in her personal bank account. The criminal case was later provisionally dismissed and the accused settled the civil aspect by giving postdated checks to Castillo. Castillo requested Buencillo to give her the P70,000.00 that was deposited in court. Buencillo remitted P50,000.00, but retained P20,000.00. This triggered an administrative complaint against Buencillo for serious misconduct and dishonesty. Complainant also alleged that respondent has been operating a canteen within the premises of the court building and violated Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 3-92. The respondent denied ownership of the canteen and claimed that the administrative complaint was filed to harass and malign her. Four issues were to be resolved, including whether respondent may deposit the money in her personal bank account, whether she may retain the P20,000.00, whether paluwagan is gambling, and whether the operation of the canteen violates the Supreme Court Circular. The Court held that the deposit in the personal bank account was inappropriate but did not constitute misappropriation. The P70,000.00 did not become public fund as it was voluntarily deposited by a private person and not pursuant to a court order.

ISSUES:

  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 the complainant.

  3. Whether or not paluwagan is gambling.

  4. Whether or not the operation of the canteen mentioned is violative of Supreme Court Circular 3-92.

RULING:

  1. The Court believes that the deposit of the P70,000.00 in respondent's personal bank account was not appropriate and without justification. Every public officer is bound to exercise prudence and caution in the discharge of duties, acting primarily for the benefit of the public. The money should have been deposited in a bank account in the name of the court. However, this act does not constitute misappropriation.

  2. The Court held that respondent cannot retain the P20,000.00 without proper justification. It was not proven that the complainant voluntarily left the amount to answer for a debt. Thus, respondent should have remitted the full amount to the complainant.

  3. The Court did not explicitly rule on whether paluwagan is gambling or not.

  4. The Court did not explicitly rule on whether the operation of the canteen is violative of Supreme Court Circular 3-92.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Public officers are bound to exercise prudence and caution in the discharge of their duties, acting primarily for the benefit of the public.

  • When money is deposited in court voluntarily by a private person, it does not become public fund in custodia legis.