Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, |
|
A.M. No. P-04-1924 (Formerly A.M. No.
04-10-593-RTC and OCA IPI No. 04-1890-P) |
|
Complainant, |
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUNO,
C.J. |
|
|
|
QUISUMBING, |
|
|
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, |
|
- versus - |
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, |
|
|
|
CARPIO, |
|
|
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
JUSTAFINA HOPE T. LAYA, Clerk III, and BENILDA M. MADDELA, Clerk IV, RTC-OCC, Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x |
|
CARPIO-MORALES, CALLEJO, SR., AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, VELASCO, JR., and NACHURA, JJ. |
|
FLAVIANO D. BALGOS, JR., RUBY ROSA R. ESPINO, and JOHN D. BALASYA, Complainants, - versus - JUSTAFINA HOPE T. LAYA, Clerk III, RTC-OCC, Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya, Respondent. |
|
Promulgated: |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
Once more, the Court reiterates its
concern
x x x
about the propensity of accountable officers in the judiciary to yield to the
temptation to use public funds for personal interests. But, as it tries to devise the appropriate
action to strengthen the moral fiber and strength of character of the employees
and officers that constitute the judiciary, this court shall never be less
strict in applying only the highest standards of propriety, decorum, integrity,
uprightness and honesty from the highest judicial officer of the land to the
humblest court employee, for the ultimate power of this court lies in its
incorruptibility.[1]
The factual antecedents of this case are as follows:
A
financial audit was conducted by the Court Management Office (CMO), Office of
the Court Administrator (OCA) in the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC),
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Bayombong, Nueva Viscaya, in response to a
letter from Executive Judge Gil L. Valdez, which was received by this Court on
March 21, 2003, stating that there are unaccounted funds in said office.[2] The case is docketed as A.M. No. P-04-1924
(formerly A.M. No. 04-10-593-RTC).
During
the pendency of said audit, the Court received a
letter dated
Maddela (Maddela),
and Justafina Hope T. Laya
(Laya), collecting officers of the OCC, of
misappropriating court funds.[4]
Contained in the records are: (1) an
Affidavit-Complaint executed by Balgos, et
al. dated November 26, 2002, stating that Maddela
and Laya admitted shortage in the court funds, which
at that time amounted to P800,000.00, with a promise to restitute the
same;[5]
(2) a promissory note signed by Maddela and Laya dated October 4, 1999, promising to jointly and solidarily restitute the amount of P800,000.00 which
amount may increase or decrease depending on the final outcome of the audit;[6]
(3) a joint affidavit signed by Maddela and Laya dated September 26, 2000 acknowledging that they used
for personal gain the missing court funds;[7]
(4) a letter from Atty. Balgos, et al. dated
May 15, 2002, requesting the Provincial Auditor to conduct an audit on the
books of accounts of the OCC;[8] and, (5)
letters from Josephine Camonayan (Camonayan)
of the Commission on Audit (COA) Bayombong, dated
June 5, 2002, addressed to Maddela and Laya stating that Maddela
incurred a shortage of P2,450,113.90 and Laya,
the amount of P53,257.20 which they are required to produce within 72
hours together with an explanation why such shortages occurred.[9] The
case is docketed as OCA I.P.I No. 04-1890-P.
In her
Comment, [10]
in OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1890-P, Laya claimed that she
should not be accused of dishonesty as she was only forced to enter into a
compromise agreement and she already remitted a large amount of money since 1998. Specifically, she alleged that: as Clerk III
it is not her function to receive collections for the office and she only
helped in collecting funds whenever Maddela or Helena
Dacayo, Staff Assistant IV,[11]
was absent or busy; the Clerks of Court never requested the COA to audit the
collections of the office and since it could not be determined who was
responsible for the missing amount, she and Maddela
were just made to compute their respective collections based on the initials on
the receipts; she was pressured to shoulder her collection, whether remitted or
not, with the assurance that an audit will be conducted and any payment made
will be returned after they find out who is responsible for the missing amount;
she was forced by her superiors to sign a promissory note and later an unnotarized document dated September 26, 2000; from
November 1998 to December 3, 2002, she gave P232,550.00 under protest to
the clerks of court who did not immediately deposit the same, and P73,300.00
to Zosimo Javier (Javier), Cash Clerk of the OCC;
later the amount of P373,257.20 was also found to be missing and she (Laya) entered into a compromise agreement where she
shouldered P73,257.20; she remitted P20,000.00 on April 23, 2002,
another P20,000.00 on August 18, 2002 and P33,270.20 on December
2, 2003 with the assurance from Balasya that if she
remitted the said amount her name would be dropped from the complaint; and, Maddela acknowledged that all her (Laya's)
collections were already remitted with an excess of P93,191.80.[12]
On
On
x x x there is sufficient basis in filing criminal and administrative cases, whenever applicable against the following accountable public
officers who have incurred substantial shortages in their accounts, as shown in these audit findings:
|
Accountable Officer |
Fund Name |
Shortage Amount |
|
|
|
|
|
Atty. Balgos |
JDF[14] |
|
|
|
FF[15] |
135,836.10 |
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atty. Espino |
JDF |
|
|
|
FF |
716,678.74 |
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atty. Balasya |
JDF |
|
|
|
CCGF[16] |
27,091.30 |
|
|
SGF[17] |
2,634.00 |
|
|
FF |
2,039,449.76 |
|
Total |
|
|
|
Total (Gross Restitutions and Overages) |
|
|
Clerks of Court Atty. Balgos, Atty. Espino, and Atty. Balaysa clearly incurred the above shortages in their
accounts during their incumbencies as accountable public officers, hence, the
crime of malversation defined under Art. 217 of the
Revised Penal Code, whether committed by dolo
or culpa, squarely apply. While the presumption may be disputed that
the disappearance of public funds in the hands of accountable public officer[s]
is prima facie evidence of their conversion, it can not be disputed that
it is through their reckless negligence that the funds have been missing. In their joint letter dated
Moreover, the audit team noted that there were no records/ documents of JDF collections which were submitted by Atty. Balgos from July 1988 to August 1989 or a period of 14 months. Likewise, Atty. R. Espino has not submitted any record/documents of JDF collections from
August 1993 to July 1994, or a period of 12 months. These circumstances fall within the purview of Art. 218 of the Revised Penal Code.
As to the administrative aspect of
the case, the concerned Clerks of Court are no longer connected with the
Judiciary. However, there are reports
that Atty. Espino filed a certificate of candidacy
but lost the bid in the May 2004 elections; Atty. Balasya
is with the Department of Justice while Atty. Balgos
is an incumbent member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Nueva Vizcaya. On the
other hand, Mrs. Maddela filed her retirement
effective
a) This report be docketed as a regular administrative matter against Mrs. Justafina T. Laya and Mrs. Benilda M. Maddela;
b) Mrs. Justafina T. Laya, Clerk III of RTC, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, be SUSPENDED pending resolution of this administrative matter;
c) The matter be referred to the Legal Office for the filing of appropriate criminal charges against the following former accountable officers, Atty. Flaviano D. Balgos, Jr., Atty. Ruby Rosa R. Espino and Atty. John D. Balasya, as well as Mrs. Benilda M. Maddela and Mrs. Justafina T. Laya.
d)
The clearance of Mrs. Benilda
M. Maddela, retired Clerk IV, be WITHHELD during the pendency of this administrative matter.[18]
Attached to
said report was the affidavit of Maddela dated August
20, 2003, alleging that: while she was designated by Atty. Balgos
to be a collecting officer, any other person may collect whenever Maddela was busy or absent; the affidavit stating that they
(Maddela and Laya) were
liable for the amount of P2,450,113.00 was a ready-made affidavit which
they were forced to sign by their superiors; there were earnest efforts on her
part to pay and she was in fact able to give P266,517.95 to Atty. Balasya and P371,683.00 to Javier, which she gave
even though she is not liable for the said amount, because the former clerks of
court were always humiliating her in public; the alleged shortage is a result
of erroneous withdrawals, and when she (Maddela) was
still the collecting officer, a large amount of money was stolen from
her; such fact was brought to the attention of Atty. Balgos
who even confronted the thief; and, no audit was made in
arriving at the amount mentioned in Atty. Balgos, et
al.’s complaint and she (Maddela) just saw Atty. Balasya talking to Camonayan of
the COA dictating the amount of the shortage, thus two days later, they (Maddela and Laya) received a
demand letter from Camonayan asking them to explain
the shortage.[19]
Maddela retired effective
Also attached
to the report was the Counter-Affidavit of Laya dated
August 27, 2003 stating that: she signed the promissory note, which was
prepared beforehand, to show her sincerity in paying her liability despite
knowing that her liability is lesser than what was reflected in said note; and,
she restituted the amount of P232,550.00 to Attys. Espino
and Balasya and the amount of P73,300.00 to
Javier for the total sum of P305,805.00 which is far beyond her
collections which only amounted to P179,358.20.[21]
Based on the report and the
recommendation of the OCA, the Court, on
a. The report be DOCKETED as administrative matter against Mrs. Justafina T. Laya and Mrs. Benilda M. Maddela;
b. Mrs. Justafina T. Laya, Clerk III of RTC, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya be SUSPENDED pending resolution of this administrative matter;
c. The matter be REFERRED to the Legal Office for the filing of appropriate criminal charges against the following former accountable officers, Flaviano D. Balgos, Jr., Atty. Ruby Rosa R. Espino and Atty. John D. Balaysa, as well as Mrs. Benilda M. Maddela and Mrs. Justafina T. Laya;
d. The
clearance of Mrs. Benilda M. Maddela,
retired Clerk IV, be WITHHELD during the pendency of
this administrative matter.[22]
Laya filed a Motion for Reconsideration[23]
and a Motion to Lift Suspension insisting that there is no truth to the charges
against her.[24]
On
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully recommended that the said respondents [Maddela and Laya] be found guilty of (1) malversation and (2) gross dishonesty. It is also recommended (1) that Mrs. Maddela who has reached the retirement age, be declared separated from service for being administratively guilty with corresponding forfeiture of her pension and other emoluments yet to be paid to her; and (2) that Mrs. Justafina Hope T. Laya be dismissed from service, with all the accessory penalties attendant thereto.[26]
On
We x x x find respondents Laya and Maddela guilty of Dishonesty and respectfully recommend that:
(1) Respondent and Justafina T. Laya be DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government including government [owned] or controlled corporations and financial institutions.
(2) Respondent Benilda Maddela who’s (sic) retirement clearances were withheld pending the outcome of their administrative case be likewise considered DISMISSED from the services (sic) with forfeiture of all benefits and privileges with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of government including government owned or controlled corporations and financial institutions;
(3)
That the Legal office be DIRECTED forthwith to comply
with the Courts (sic) resolution dated
“The matter be referred to the Legal Office for the filing of appropriate criminal charges against the following former accountable officers, Flaviano D. Balgos, Jr., Atty. Ruby Rosa R. Espino and Atty. John D. Balaysa as well as Mrs. Benilda M. Maddela and Justafina Hope T. Laya.”[28]
On
In a Memorandum dated
Without doubt, herein respondents, Maddela and Laya, committed
dishonesty and grave misconduct for which they should be dismissed.
Time and again, the Court has
stressed that every employee in the judiciary should be an example of
integrity, uprightness and honesty.[32] The
conduct required of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest
clerk, must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with a heavy burden of
responsibility, as the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in
the conduct of the men and women who work thereat.[33] No position demands greater moral
righteousness and uprightness from its occupant than a judicial office.[34] Indeed, the nature and responsibilities of
public officers enshrined in the Constitution and oft-repeated in our case law
are not mere rhetoric to be taken as idealistic sentiments.[35]
These are working standards and attainable goals that should be matched with
actual deeds.[36]
Maddela and Laya,
while not officially designated as cash clerks, handled the cash collections of
the OCC. Thus, they cannot escape administrative liability on the ground that
it is not their official function to collect court funds.[37] They both admitted having incurred shortages
and made partial restitutions on the liability of Maddela.
On the liability of Maddela.
The fact that Maddela
had already retired before the financial audit report came out does not divest
this Court of the power to administratively discipline her.[38]
Maddela
appeared only on
the first scheduled
hearing of the
investigation conducted by Judge Rosales[39]
and never returned in the succeeding dates despite the many notices given her.[40] Such refusal on her part to face head-on the
charges against her is contrary to the impulse of an innocent person who when
accused of wrongdoing
is eager to express her
innocence at the first opportune time.[41]
Indeed, the natural instinct of a man
is to resist an unfounded claim or imputation and defend himself, for it is
totally against human nature to remain silent and say nothing in the face of
false accusations. Silence in such
instances is almost always construed as an implied admission of the truth
thereof. Thus, in the absence of any compelling reason to hold otherwise,
respondent's silence can be construed as an acknowledgment of the truthfulness
of the charges against her.[42]
For her refusal to make full use of
the opportunity given her to explain her side, the Court is left with no choice
but to base its conclusions and decision on what is found in the records.[43] In her affidavit dated P2,450,113.00.[44] Even if the Court were to disregard such
affidavit which she claims she was forced to sign, still the Court is not
inclined to free her from administrative liability. In her
10. x x x the alleged shortage is a
result of erroneous withdrawals and that when I was still the collecting
officer, a large amount of money was stolen from me. Such fact is [sic] even brought to the
attention of Atty. Flaviano D. Balgos,
Jr. who confronted the thief.[45]
She did not disclose, however, who
the thief was, neither did she say if there was any criminal case filed against
said thief; or if there was none, why no such case was filed. Such story simply does not inspire belief
from this Court and therefore cannot free her from liability. What is undisputed is that she was the
collecting officer of the OCC and there were funds received by her that she
could not account for.
On the liability of Laya.
Laya also renounces the
That based on our report, a shortage really
existed;
That when our attention was called for the
missing funds, I already more or less new (sic) my share of the missing funds;
That I signed the prepared document
(Promissory Note) to show my sincerity to pay my liability even if I know very
well that my liability is lesser that (sic) what is reflected in the
promissory note. Besides, I was
confident that sooner or later, an audit would establish the accountability of
each of us [sic]; (Emphasis supplied)
That although it does not show in the reports
submitted to the Supreme Court that restitutions were made, indeed the amount
of …
x x x x
GRAND TOTAL – P305,850.00 (was
remitted). That this amount is to my
knowledge, far beyond my collections which is only more or less P179,358.20.[46]
She also admitted during the
investigation conducted by Judge Rosales that she was liable for a certain
amount, thus:
HEARING OFFICER:
Q. Since you stated that this is not the total amount that you
would have paid for these missing funds, can you tell this Hearing Office how
much exactly do you believe should have been paid by you for the missing funds?
A.
Which
funds, sir?
Q. All the obligations supposed to be paid
by you if there was any?
A.
I would
have to deduct the amount of P73,000.00 more or less plus also P100,000.00 that
I had to pay for the JDF, sir.
x x x x
Q. Is
that all?
A.
Yes,
sir.
ATTY. BALASYA:
Q. So, you are saying that you admit that deducting these
amounts that you have stated, what is left are the obligations that you have
not paid from the missing funds, is that correct?
A.
But
these funds were already submitted, sir.
x x x x
Q. So how did this shortage come into being? Was it accumulated
through the years or was it only accumulated during the time of Fiscal Balgos, during the time of Atty. Espino
or during my time, that remaining amount?
A.
It
happened during the time of Atty. Espino and Atty. Balasya, sir.
Q. Taking
from you (sic) statement, a while ago Madam Witness the other missing funds
could be attributed to Mrs. Maddela?
A. Yes,
sir.[47]
What Laya
insists on is that she has remitted more than what she is accountable for. Again, such defense cannot free her from
liability.
It is basic
that the fact
that respondent fully paid her shortages does
not free her from the consequences of her
wrongdoing.[48] Restitution
of the
missing amount cannot erase administrative liability.[49] This is
because by respondent's reprehensible act of gross dishonesty, she has
undermined the public's faith in the courts and ultimately, in the
administration of justice.[50]
Moreover, the restitutions made by Maddela and Laya have already
been considered by the audit team in the computation of the missing funds in
the amount of P4,009,351.09.
Maddela’s and Laya’s
acts of misappropriating judiciary funds constitute dishonesty and grave
misconduct which are grave offenses punishable by dismissal.[51] Dishonesty
being a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal even for the
first offense.[52] Laya started
collecting funds for Maddela since 1987[53]. She testified that she would turn over the
funds she collected to Maddela or deposit the same to
the bank.[54] When asked, however, if she had evidence to
show that she paid Maddela the collections covered by
this case, all she could answer was that she has some records at home, and she
and Maddela listed them down on pieces of paper which
lists were signed or noted by either one of them.[55] Thus, Maddela and Laya are jointly and severally liable for the amount of P4,009,351.09.
The Court, in its Resolution dated
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES:
1. Justafina Hope T. Laya,
Clerk III of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, is found GUILTY of dishonesty and grave
misconduct and is hereby DISMISSED from the service effective
immediately with prejudice to reemployment in any government agency, including
government owned and controlled corporations.
All her salaries, allowances and retirement benefits, excluding accrued
leave of absence that have been withheld, are forfeited in favor of the
government.
2. Benilda M. Maddela
is found GUILTY of dishonesty and grave misconduct. All her retirement benefits, excluding earned
leave credits, are ordered forfeited in favor of the government with prejudice
to reemployment in any government office, including government owned and
controlled corporations.
3. Benilda M. Maddela
and Justafina Hope T. Laya
are ORDERED to jointly and severally restitute within thirty (30) days
from notice the amount of P4,009,351.09 representing the shortages in
the following funds as follows: Judiciary Development Fund --- P1,087,661.19;
Fiduciary Fund --- P2,891,964.60; Clerk of Court General Fund--- P27,091.30;
and Sheriff's General Fund --- P2,634.00.
4. DIRECT the Legal Office, Office of the
Court Administrator, to report
to the Court, within ten (10) days from notice hereof, the Status of the
charges supposed to have been filed against Atty. Faviano
D. Balgos, Atty. Ruby Rosa E. Espino,
Atty. John D. Balasya, Mrs.Benilda
M. Maddela and Mrs. Justafina
Hope T. Laya.
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate
Justice |
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES Associate Justice |
ROMEO J. CALLEJO,
SR. Associate Justice |
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice |
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
[1] Sy
v. Mongcupa, 335 Phil. 182, 187 (1997).
[2] Rollo
(A.M. No. P-04-1924), pp. 21-23.
[3] Rollo
(OCA-IPI No. 04-1890-P), p. 4.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Retired in the late 1980s, TSN Justafina Hope T. Laya,
[12] Rollo (OCA IPI No. 04-1890-P), pp. 26-31.
[13]
[14] Judiciary Development Fund.
[15] Fiduciary Fund.
[16] Clerk of Court General Fund.
[17] Sheriff’s General Fund.
[18] Rollo (A.M. No. P-04-1924), pp. 22-23.
[19]
[20] See Financial Audit Report, id. at 23.
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26] Rollo (OCA IPI No. 04-1890-P), p. 104.
[27] Rollo (A.M. No. P-04-1924), p. 431.
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32] Re: Report on the Judicial and Financial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Koronadal City, A.M. No. 02-9-233-MTCC, April 27, 2005, 457 SCRA 356, 369; Mallare v. Ferry, 414 Phil. 286, 294 (2001).
[33] Re:Report
on the Financial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Sta. Cruz,
Davao del Sur, A.M. No.
05-2-41, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 143, 149; Concerned Citizen v. Gabral, Jr., A.M. No. P-05-2098,
[34] Re: Report on the Financial
Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court, Sta. Cruz,
[35] Marasigan v. Buena, supra note 33, at 10.
[36]
[37] Judiciary Planning Development and Implementation Office v. Calaguas, 326 Phil. 703, 708-709 (1996).
[38] See Re: Report on the Judicial
and Financial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
[39] Rollo (OCA IPI No. 04-1890-P), 50.
[40]
[41] Re:Complaint
Against Atty. Wilfredo B. Claveria
for Misappropriation of Judiciary Funds, AM No. P-02-1626,
[42] Re: Complaint Against Atty. Wilfredo B. Claveria for Misappropriation of Judiciary Funds, id. at 543.
[43] Dizon v. Bawalan, 453 Phil. 125, 133 (2003).
[44] Rollo (P-04-1924), pp. 31-32.
[45]
[46]
[47] TSN, Justafina
Hope T. Laya,
[48] Re: Report on the Examination of the Cash and Accounts of the Clerks of Court of the RTC and the MTC of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, 448 Phil. 464, 468 (2003); Report on the Financial Audit Conducted at the Municipal Trial Courts of Bani, Alaminos, and Lingayen in Pangasinan, 462 Phil. 535, 542-543 (2003); Judiciary Planning Development and Implementation Office v. Calaguas, 326 Phil. 703, 708 (1996).
[49] Office of the Court Administrator
v. Bernardino, A.M. No. P-97-1258,
[50] Re:Report
on the Financial Audit Conducted in the MTCC-OCC,
[51] Office of the Court Administrator v. Bernardino, id. at 119-120; Re: Report on the Examination of the Cash and Accounts of the Clerks of Court of the RTC and the MTC of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, supra note 48, at 468.
[52] Marasigan
v. Buena, supra note 33, at 11; See also Sollesta
v.
[53] TSN, Justafina
Hope T. Laya,
[54] TSN, Laya,
[55] TSN, Laya,