EN BANC
[A.M. No. 99-11-157-MTC. August 7, 2000]
REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL
AUDIT CONDUCTED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF OIC MELINDA DESEO, MTC, General
Trias, Cavite,
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
The Office of
the Court Administrator examined the books of account of the Municipal Trial
Court, General Trias, Cavite with regard to collections for the Fiduciary Fund
for the period November 1997 to February 4, 1999 and for the General and
Judiciary Development Funds for the period August 1998 to January 31,
1999. The financial audit was ordered
in response to the letter, dated February 4, 1999, of Judge Lerio C. Castigador
of that court, informing the Court that Court Interpreter Melinda Deseo, who
was formerly the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of said MTC, had used her cash
collections to encash personal checks.
In her
explanation, dated February 13, 1999, Court Interpreter Deseo admitted the
allegations. She admitted that she
deposited in the savings account of the MTC in lieu of her cash collections not
only her personal checks received from the Government Service Insurance System
for salary and salary loan but those of her friends and relatives as well. She claimed that she did so in good faith
and that she had seen to it that the amounts she had taken from her collections
were equal to the amounts of the checks she deposited in the savings account of
the MTC. She explained said that she
encashed the personal checks of her friends and relatives out of
"necessity" and also her personal checks to defray the expenses of
her sick mother, and otherwise avoid unscrupulous money changers who cashed
checks at huge discounts. She admitted
that she did the foregoing without the authority of judge Castigador and
expressed regrets for what she had done.
The Office of
the Court Administrator found the following:
1.
The Rural Bank of General Trias, Cavite is being utilized as depository
bank instead of Land Bank of the Philippines or Provincial Treasurer's
Office/City Treasurer's Office/Municipal Treasurer's Office, the authorized
depository agencies of the government.
2.
The incumbent Officer-In-Charge, Ms. Corazon Perez, was directed to
transfer the outstanding balance as of February 4, 1999 net of interest earned
from Rural Bank of General Trias to the nearest Land Bank of the Philippines.
3.
The interests earned from Fiduciary Fund are not remitted on a quarterly
basis to the National Treasury under the General Fund as provided for in
Circular No. 50-95.
4.
There were encashments of personal checks from Fiduciary Fund
collections.
5.
The accountable officer was not complying with Circular No. 22-94 which
requires that all receipts must be issued in strict numerical sequence and all
copies of cancelled receipts must be intact for COA inspection.
6.
Entries in the Cashbook do not reconcile with the monthly reports
submitted to the Accounting Division, Office of the Court Administrator.
In the course of our examination we
noted that there was an overage deposit of P1,500 deposits in the Rural Bank of
General Trias which according to Ms. Deseo pertains to the deposits made by Mr.
Perfecto Villanueva in Criminal Case No. 2476 under O.R. No. 6852716, dated
February 19, 1998. This was already
refunded to Mr. Villanueva by virtue of a Court Order dated February 23,
1998. According to Ms. Deseo she
personally refunded the amount upon presentation of the SC official receipt
from her collections and did not withdraw the said amount from the bank. There is also unwithdrawn interest of P180.12
making a total of P1,680.12 overage from bank balance as against
cashbook and Statement of Unwithdrawn Fiduciary Fund.
On the basis of
the foregoing findings, the OCA recommended on October 20, 1999 that (1)
Melinda Deseo be given an admonition and warned that repetition of what she had
done or a similar offense would be dealt with more severely; (2) the present
OIC, Corazon Perez, be advised to comply strictly with Circular No. 50-95 and
other circulars governing the collection of funds; and (3) Judge Lerio Castigador
be admonished to closely monitor the handling of the cash collections.
In view of the
recommendation that Court Interpreter Melinda Deseo be simply given an
admonition with warning, the matter was returned to the OCA for revision of its
recommendations. However, in its
memorandum, dated February 9, 2000, the OCA reiterated its previous
recommendation.
Hence, the
necessity to impose a penalty on Ms. Deseo, consistent with the OCA's finding
that she violated Circular No. 50-95.
The pertinent
portions of this Circular are set forth below:
CIRCULAR NO. 50-95
TO: ALL
JUDGES AND CLERKS OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS, SHARI’A DISTRICT
COURTS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS AND SHARI’A CIRCUIT COURTS.
SUBJECT: COURT FIDUCIARY FUNDS
The following guidelines and
procedures for purposes of uniformity in the manner of collections and deposits
are hereby established:
A.
Guidelines in Making Deposits:
(1) Deposits of fiduciary funds
shall be made under a savings account. A current account may also be maintained
provided that a savings account is also maintained with automatic fund transfer
arrangement.
(2) Deposits shall be made in the
name of the Court, with its Clerk of Court and the Executive judge as
authorized signatories.
(3) The Clerk of Court shall be the
custodian of the Passbook to be issued by the depository bank and shall report
to the Executive Judge for TC, SDC, MetroTC, MTCC, and the Presiding Judge for
MTC, MCTC and SCC, the bank's name, branch and savings/current account
number. Xerox copy of the passbook
shall be submitted to the Fiscal Audit Division.
B. Guidelines in Making
Withdrawals
. . . .
(4) All collections from bailbonds,
rental deposits, and other fiduciary collections shall be deposited within
twenty four (24) hours by the Clerk of Court concerned, upon receipt thereof,
with the Land Bank of the Philippines.
(5) Interest earned on these
deposits and any forfeited amounts shall accrue to the general fund of the
national government. Within two (2)
weeks after the end of each quarter, the Clerk of Court shall withdraw such
interest and forfeited amounts and shall remit the same to the National
Treasury under a separate remittance advice, duplicate copy thereof to be
furnished the Chief Accountant of the Supreme Court for record and control
purposes.
(6) Only one depository bank shall
be maintained and the bank must be formally informed by the Executive/Presiding
judge as to who are the authorized signatories to the withdrawal slips and that
every withdrawal slip must be accompanied by a court order authorizing the
withdrawal of the amount indicated thereat.
(7) Except in instances
specifically mentioned in the immediately succeeding paragraph, all fiduciary
collections currently deposited with the local treasurers/ and other
depositories shall be withdrawn therefrom and deposited with the
savings/current accounts maintained by the court for these collections.
(8) In localities where there are
no branches of the Land Bank of the Philippines, fiduciary collections shall be
deposited by the Clerk of Court with the Provincial, City, or Municipal
Treasurer.
(9) Within two (2) weeks after the
end of each quarter, all Clerks of Court are hereby required to submit to the
Chief Accountant of the Supreme Court, copy furnished the Office of the Court
Administrator, a quarterly report indicating the outstanding balance maintained
with the depository bank or local treasurer, and the date, nature, and amount
of all deposits and withdrawals made within such period.
Circulars that are inconsistent
herewith are considered revoked.
This Circular shall take effect on
November 1, 1995.
October 11, 1995.
(Sgd.) ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO
Court Administrator
Considering her
admissions and the findings of the OCA, there is no doubt that Court
Interpreter Melinda Deseo violated Circular No. 50-95 by using her cash
collections, which she should have deposited in the bank for the account of the
MTC, in order to encash not only her personal checks but also those of her
friends and relatives. As we have
previously stated, the Fiduciary Fund is in the nature of a trust fund which
should not be withdrawn without authority of the court.[1] Its use for other purposes
constitutes a misappropriation of public funds placed in the care of the public
officer concerned.
Ms. Deseo's
claim that she encashed the checks of friends and relatives because they badly
needed cash and her checks to defray the expenses of her sick mother cannot be
justified. The same excuse has been
rejected by this Court as the activity is no different from the activities of
money changers victimizing lowly employees in need of cash. Indeed, the activity found was actually a
lending operation with the use of public funds.[2] In recommending that Ms. Deseo be
merely admonished, the OCA stated:
Ms. Deseo was designated as
Officer-in-Charge of this court on September 25, 1995. She occupies the position of Interpreter,
thus she is unfamiliar with the guidelines in handling court funds. When she was designated in an acting
capacity, she had no thorough knowledge nor had an orientation/seminar in
administering Fiduciary Fund collections.
When she encashed personal checks against court funds she violated
Circular No. 50-95 which she readily admitted per explanation dated February
13, 1999. These factors were considered
as mitigating in evaluating the liability of Ms. Deseo. Besides, this office found that the
collections and deposits on other funds (JDF and General Fund) are in order and
withdrawals of Fiduciary Funds are upon court order.
The Court
disagrees. Ms. Deseo's alleged lack of prior training and orientation in
administering Fiduciary Fund collections cannot relieve her of administrative
liability. Her collections and deposits
of other funds (Judiciary Development Fund and General Fund) are in order. Her responsibilities for these funds are
substantially the same as her responsibility for the Fiduciary Fund. It is difficult to believe that she was
ignorant of the provisions of Circular No. 50-95. She might, in the beginning, have been unaware of the circular,
but surely she could not have remained so for the three years that she was the
OIC. Admonition, as recommended by the
OCA, is not a penalty. Her offense
deserves more than a "gentle or friendly reproof, a mild rebuke, warning
or reminder, counseling on a fault, error or oversight, an expression of
authoritative advice or warning"[3] which is all that admonition
amounts to.
Indeed, Ms.
Deseo is guilty of misconduct for which suspension for six (6) months and one
(1) day without pay is the appropriate penalty. It is no excuse that the funds of the court were all accounted
for.[4]
This is where
the responsibility of Judge Lerio Castigador comes in. As Ms. Deseo's superior, Judge Castigador
should have exercised direct and immediate supervision over her to ensure that
she observed the provisions of Circular No. 50-95. As the Court held:
Indeed, clerks of court are the
chief administrative officers of their respective courts; with regard to the
collection of legal fees, they perform a delicate function as judicial officers
entrusted with the correct and effective implementation of regulations
thereon. Even the undue delay, in the
remittances of amounts collected by them at the very least constitutes
misfeasance. On the other hand, a vital
administrative function of a judge is the effective management of his court,
and this includes control of the conduct of the court's ministerial officers. It should be brought home to both that the
safekeeping of funds and collections is essential to the goal of an orderly
administration of justice and no protestation of good faith can override the
mandatory nature of the Circulars designed to promote full accountability for
government funds.[5]
Judge Castigador
cannot entirely wash his hands of responsibility by disclaiming knowledge of
Ms. Deseo's activities. He must,
however, be given credit for getting wind of Ms. Deseo's activities and
bringing them to the attention of the Court.
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED as follows:
(1) To find
Melinda Deseo, former Officer-in-Charge, Municipal Trial Court, General Trias,
Cavite, guilty of MISCONDUCT and order her SUSPENSION for six (6) months and
one (1) day without pay with WARNING that a repetition of this or a similar
offense will be dealt with more severely;
(2) to ADMONISH
Judge Lerio C. Castigador to exercise effective supervision over the personnel
of his court, especially those charged with collection of the Fiduciary Fund
and other trust funds (Judiciary Development Fund and Trust Fund); and
(3) to ADVISE
Ms. Corazon Perez, Officer-in-Charge, to observe strictly Circular No. 50-95
and pertinent circulars of the Court.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo,
Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Bellosillo,
J., on
leave.
[1] Re:
Report of the Judicial and Financial Audit of RTC-Br. 4, Panabo, Davao del
Norte, 287 SCRA 510 (1998).
[2] Menesses v. Sandiganbayan, 232 SCRA
441 (1994); Re: Financial Audit in RTC, General Santos City, 271 SCRA 302
(1997).
[3] Tobias
v. Veloso, 100 SCRA 177, 184 (1981).
[4] Re: Financial Audit in RTC, General Santos City,
supra.
[5] A.M. No. 96-1-25-RTC, Report on the Financial audit in
the RTC, General Santos City and the RTC and MTC of Polomolok, South Cotabato,
March 8, 2000.