Clerks of Court Responsibilities and Liabilities for Lost Court Exhibits

The Supreme Court has long held that clerks of court are the custodians of court records, exhibits, and property. When those exhibits go missing, the clerk bears responsibility — even if no one can prove who took them. In a 1997 administrative case, the Court clarified the extent of that duty and the consequences for failing to meet it.

The Case: Lost Firearms at RTC Makati

In Re: Loss of Court Exhibits at RTC, Br. 136, Makati City (A.M. No. 93-9-1237-RTC, August 21, 1997), Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Cynthia Marmita discovered that eleven short firearms and ammunition had vanished from a steel cabinet in her court. The cabinet showed no signs of forced entry; the lock was intact and the key worked. A subsequent inventory revealed a twelfth firearm and several personal effects were also missing.

Marmita reported the loss to the new presiding judge, who ordered a police report and an investigation. The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted a formal inquiry but found no concrete evidence linking anyone to the theft. The NBI recommended closing the case. However, the Supreme Court took a different view of Marmita's responsibility.

The Duty to Keep Exhibits Safe

The Court cited the Manual for Clerks of Court in defining the clerk's duties. Under that Manual, clerks of court are responsible for the safekeeping of all records, papers, files, exhibits, and public property committed to their charge. The Court also referenced Rule 136 of the Rules of Court as a related basis for this custodial duty, though the exact text of that provision is not reproduced in the decision.

The Manual further directs that firearms and ammunition no longer needed as evidence must be turned over to the nearest Constabulary Command or, in Metro Manila, to the Firearms and Explosives Unit at Camp Crame. This turnover must happen after the cases involving those exhibits are terminated.

The Failure to Comply

The Court examined the status of the criminal cases tied to the missing exhibits. It found that in at least seven cases, the proceedings had already been decided or dismissed. In those cases, the firearms should have been transferred to Camp Crame long before the loss was discovered.

Because Marmita failed to turnover the exhibits after those cases ended, the Court ruled that she was negligent. The loss could have been avoided had she complied with the directive. The NBI's failure to identify the thief did not absolve her; her own omission created the opportunity for the loss.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found Atty. Marmita administratively liable for negligence. It imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), to be deducted from her retirement benefits. The Court also noted that this was without prejudice to any civil liability she might face.

The Court took the opportunity to remind all branch clerks of court that their administrative functions are "just as vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice" as their judicial counterparts. Clerks cannot slacken in their duties under any pretext.

Practical Takeaways

• Clerks of court are personally accountable for all exhibits, records, and property in their custody. This is a non-delegable duty.
• Firearms and ammunition used as evidence must be turned over to the proper authorities immediately after the case is terminated. Do not wait for a reminder.
• A clerk cannot escape liability simply because the actual thief was never identified. Failure to follow turnover rules is itself negligence.
• The duty to safeguard exhibits continues even during transitions between judges or clerks. An inventory at turnover is essential but does not replace ongoing compliance.
• Administrative liability may be imposed alongside criminal or civil liability. A fine, suspension, or dismissal may result from such negligence.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.