Clerk of Court Liability for Lost Evidence: Custody Duties Explained

The Supreme Court has long held that clerks of court are essential officers of the judicial system, entrusted with the safekeeping of court records, exhibits, and public property. When that trust is breached—even without bad faith—there are consequences. In Pentecostes v. Marasigan (A.M. No. P-07-2337, August 3, 2007), the Court clarified that a clerk of court who transfers evidence without prior judicial authority commits simple misconduct, even if the loss occurred through no deliberate wrongdoing.

The Case: A Motorcycle Under Court Custody

The case began when Rolly Pentecostes filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Hermenegildo Marasigan, Clerk of Court VI of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kabacan, North Cotabato. The dispute involved a Kawasaki motorcycle that was the subject of Criminal Case No. 1010 for carnapping.

On August 1, 1995, the trial court ordered the M'lang chief of police to turn over the motorcycle to Marasigan, who acknowledged receipt. After hearings to determine ownership, the court ordered the motorcycle released to Pentecostes on November 15, 2000. When Pentecostes sought to claim it, Marasigan repeatedly told him to wait. It later emerged that Marasigan had transferred the motorcycle to the Kabacan police station—without court authority—and the vehicle had gone missing.

The Issue: Unauthorized Transfer of Evidence

The central question was whether Marasigan should be held administratively liable for the loss of the motorcycle. The investigating judge recommended dismissal, finding that Marasigan had prudently transferred the vehicle to the police given security concerns. However, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) noted a critical flaw: Marasigan never secured prior authority from the trial court for the transfer.

The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA. The Court emphasized that a clerk of court's duty to safeguard evidence is not discretionary. The Court cited Section 7, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court, which provides that the clerk shall safely keep all records, papers, files, exhibits, and public property committed to his charge. The 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court similarly provides that exhibits turned over to the court remain under the clerk's custody until the case is terminated.

The Ruling: Simple Misconduct, Not Grave

The Court distinguished between simple and grave misconduct. Grave misconduct requires corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or a deliberate disregard of established rules—all of which must be proven by substantial evidence. Here, no such elements were shown. Marasigan's unauthorized transfer, while a violation of duty, lacked bad faith.

The Court found Marasigan liable for simple misconduct, a less grave offense under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. Considering it was his first offense, the Court imposed a 15-day suspension without pay and sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.

Why the Transfer Mattered

The Court was particularly troubled by two facts. First, Marasigan transferred the motorcycle without consulting or obtaining approval from the trial court. Second, the acknowledgment receipt evidencing the transfer disappeared from the case records—a circumstance that reflected poorly on his management of court files.

The Court rejected Marasigan's defense that he acted wisely given the peace and order situation. Whatever the reason, the proper course was to seek prior judicial authority. The Court also noted that evidence suggested the motorcycle was in running condition when delivered, contradicting claims that it was already "cannibalized."

Practical Takeaways

• Clerks of court are strictly accountable for exhibits and property in their custody. This duty continues until the case is terminated or a court order provides otherwise.
• Unauthorized transfers are misconduct. Even if the transfer seems reasonable or prudent, court personnel must secure prior approval from the trial court before moving evidence to another location.
• Documentation is critical. The loss of the turnover receipt compounded the problem. Court personnel must maintain meticulous records of all evidence movements.
• Good faith is a mitigating factor. Simple misconduct, rather than grave misconduct, applies where there is no corruption or willful intent to violate rules.
• Court personnel are keepers of public faith. The Court stressed that the image of the judiciary depends on the conduct of every employee, from judges to clerks.

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