Republic of
the
THIRD DIVISION
Complainant, [Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1603-P]
Present:
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.,
Chairperson,
- versus
- AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO,
SR., and
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.
MARISSA
ANGELES, Clerk
of
Court, Municipal Trial Court,
Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija, Promulgated:
Respondent. February 5, 2006
x -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - x
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Before us
is the Complaint[1]
dated
Complainant
alleges that respondent received from one Yolanda Uera
(Uera) the sums of Thirty Two Thousand (P32,000.00) Pesos and Eighty Eight Thousand (P88,000.00)
Pesos by way of deposit as evidenced by Official Receipt Nos. 12575750 and
12575749, respectively. The money was
intended as payment for the construction materials taken by Uera
from the hardware store of the complainant; that despite demand, respondent failed
and refused to release the money and there is a strong probability that the
said money was misappropriated and converted to the personal use of respondent.
In her
Counter Affidavit dated April 19, 2004,[2]
respondent avers that it was not complainant, but her lawyer, who demanded and
approached her to give the amount of P120,000.00;
that she gave P10,000.00 to complainant's lawyer when the latter
demanded the amount of P120,000.00 because that was the only money she
has; and that what were stated in the
complaint were all lies and the accusations were not true.
In its
Resolution of
In a letter dated December 8, 2004,[4] Judge Vargas initially reported that during the informal hearing, complainant granted the plea of respondent not to pursue the complaint provided that respondent settle her financial obligation.
During the
scheduled hearing on P10,000.00)
Pesos had been partially paid by respondent.
In view of
the appointment of investigating Executive Judge Vargas to the RTC, Br. 219,
In her
Affidavit with Motion for Reconsideration dated P32,000.00 and P88,000.00 on P51,000.00
has already been returned to complainant on installment basis; that complainant assured her that she
(complainant) is willing to withdraw the complaint on agreement that she (respondent)
will pay back the remaining balance on installment basis; that she failed to pay complainant due to the
fact that her son was hospitalized on August 8-12, 2005 due to heart ailment
and she spent P37,000.00 for it;
that in her 22 years of service, she has never been charged either
criminally or administratively and has no intention of besmirching her
reputation, as it is the only legacy she can leave with her children. Respondent prays that the Court give her time
to fully pay her balance to plaintiff considering the fact that complainant is
willing to withdraw the complaint as soon as the remaining balance is fully
paid. She further avers that her husband
is jobless and she is the breadwinner of the family with two children about to
finish their course;
that her older son is still recovering from heart ailment and
needs continuous medication; that her family lives on a hand-to-mouth existence
and is dependent on her salary as a clerk of court.
In his
Investigation, Report and Recommendation dated November 16, 2005,[8] the Investigating
Judge found respondent guilty of dishonesty and acts unbecoming of a clerk of
court and recommended the penalty of six (6) months suspension without pay and
ordered her to pay complainant the amount of Seventy Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos within fifteen (15) days upon receipt of the
decision.
In its
Resolution of
In its
Memorandum of
x x x
After
careful evaluation of the records of the case, the undersigned concurs with the
findings of the Investigating Judge as the same is in conformity with the law
and jurisprudence. The undersigned,
however, differs from the penalty as recommended by the investigating judge
which we believe to be too light.
The
respondent admitted having received money in the mentioned amounts with the
instruction of forwarding the same to the complainant. The respondent failed to deliver the money as
she was instructed to do.
Worst
she used the same for the hospitalization of her son. What complicates the predicament of
respondent is her issuance of official receipts of the court for the deposited
amounts thus, making the deposit fiduciary funds or public funds which the
Court is obligated to return. It should
be noted that a fiduciary fund is in the nature of a trust fund which should
not be withdrawn without the authority of the court (RE: Report on the Judicial
and Financial Audit of RTC-Br. 4, Panabo, Davao del Norte, A.M. No. 95-4-143-RTC, 13 March 1998, 287
SCRA 510). Its use for private purposes
constitutes misappropriation of public funds.
The
conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the
dispensation of justice, the courts below not excepted, from the presiding
judge to the lowest clerk, must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility. A public servant must
exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity for no less
than the Constitution mandates that a public office is a public trust and
public officers and employees
must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism
and justice, and lead modest lives (Civil Service Commission v. Cortez, GR No.
155732, 03 June 2004).
Particularly
referring to Clerks of Court, and as the custodians of the court's funds,
revenues, records, properties and premises, they perform very delicate
functions and are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment
thereof (Toribio v. Ofilas,
A.M. No. P-03-1714,
For
those who have fallen short of their accountabilities, we have not hesitated to
impose the ultimate penalty. This Court
had never and will never tolerate nor condone any conduct which would violate
the norms of public accountability, and diminish, or even tend to diminish, the
faith of the people in the justice system (Office of the Court Administrator v.
Galo, A.M. No. P-93-989,
The Court, in Racho v. Dulatre (A.M. No. P-01-1468, 10 February 2005,
450 SCRA 568, 576), held that the failure of a clerk of court to account for
money deposited with him, and adequately explain and present evidence thereon,
constitutes gross dishonesty.
Section
52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
(Resolution No. 991936, effective September 27, 1999), provides:
Classification of Offenses. -
Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave,
less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the
government service.
A. The
following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties:
1. Dishonesty
1st Offense
– Dismissal
20. Conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service
1st Offense – Suspension (6 mos. 1 day to 1 year)
2nd Offense – Dismissal
x x x
Respondent's
financial difficulty occasioned by the hospitalization of her son does not
justify her use of the funds entrusted her.
Section
53 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
however, provides that in the determination of the penalties to be imposed, the
extenuating, mitigating, aggravating or alternative circumstances may be
considered. Verification from the
Documentation Division, Office of the Court Administrator shows that this is
the first time that respondent has ever been charged administratively. Thus, instead of imposing the penalty of
dismissal which is the imposable penalty for commission of the first offense of
dishonesty and for conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service
which is penalized for six (6) months and one (1) day suspension, respondent,
should instead be suspended for a period of one (1) year without pay with a
stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will
be dealt with more severely. She should
however still be required to pay complainant Beatriz F. Vilar
the amount of Seventy Five Thousand (Php75,000.00)
Pesos fifteen (15) days upon receipt of the decision of the Court.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the undersigned respectfully recommend to the Honorable
Court that Marissa Angeles, Clerk of Court, MTC, Pantabangan,
Nueva Ecija be found guilty
of Dishonesty and Acts Unbecoming of a Clerk of Court and recommends the
penalty of one (1) year suspension without pay and ordered to pay complainant
Beatriz F. Vilar the amount of Seventy Five Thousand
(Php75,000.00) Pesos fifteen (15) days upon receipt of
the decision of the Court.
Except for the finding that respondent used the money for the hospitalization of her son, we agree with the findings of the OCA and adopt its recommendations.
A Clerk of
Court is an essential and a ranking officer of our judicial system who performs
delicate administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper administration
of justice.[11]
Time and
again, we have reminded court personnel tasked with collections of court funds,
such as clerks of courts and cash clerks, to deposit immediately with
authorized government depositories the various funds they have collected
because they are not authorized to keep funds in their custody.[12] Failure of a public officer to remit funds
upon demand by an authorized officer constitutes prima facie evidence that the public officer has put such missing
funds or property to personal use.[13]
In
her counter affidavit, respondent did not explain what she did with the money
entrusted to her to be forwarded to the complainant. Records show that respondent's son was hospitalized
only on
As
observed by the Investigating Judge, there was an
effort on the part of respondent to settle amicably with the complainant by
paying the whole amount, having already paid P51,000.00. However, respondent was prevented from fully
satisfying her accountabilities due to the hospitalization of her son on P37,000.00 and the
latter's continuous medical needs. Such
act on the part of respondent will not, however, exculpate her from liability
although it will serve to mitigate her culpability.
It
is of no moment that complainant assured respondent that the administrative
case will be withdrawn upon full settlement of the latter's
accountability. The Investigating
Judge was correct in saying that the acts of dishonesty were
already consummated. The damage has
already been done to the prejudice of the complainant.
Moreover, the withdrawal of the complaint or the desistance of a
complainant does not warrant the dismissal of an administrative complaint.[15] This
Court has an interest in the conduct and behavior of all officials and
employees of the judiciary and in ensuring at all times the proper delivery of
justice to the people.[16] No affidavit of desistance can divest this
Court of its jurisdiction under Section 6, Article VII of the Constitution to
investigate and decide complaints against erring employees of the judiciary.[17] The issue in an administrative case is not
whether the complaint has a cause of action against the
respondent, but whether the employees have breached the norms and standards of
the courts.[18]
A public
office is a public trust. Public
officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve
them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism, justice, and lead
modest lives.[19]
Clearly, respondent failed to
measure up to the above standards fixed by the Constitution. Her acts
constitute dishonesty, not only against the public, but against the Court as
well. Surely, such conduct is very unbecoming of a
court personnel.
In Basco
v. Gregorio,[20]
the Court held that the exacting standards of ethics and morality imposed
upon court employees and judges are reflective of the premium placed on the
image of the court of justice, and that image is necessarily mirrored in the
conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat. It thus becomes the imperative and sacred
duty of everyone charged with the dispensation of justice, from the judge to
the lowliest clerk, to maintain the courts’ good name and standing as true
temples of justice.[21] Circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility, their conduct at all times must not only be characterized with
propriety and decorum, but above all else, must be above suspicion.[22] Indeed every employee of the Judiciary should
be an example of integrity, probity, uprightness, honesty and diligence.[23]
While
we commiserate with the plight of the respondent, being the sole breadwinner of
her family and the need for continuous medication of her son for the latter's
heart ailment, we cannot condone her wrongdoing. Respondent
kept the money
deposited to her instead of forwarding the same to the complainant. Worse, she
did not deposit the same to the
depository bank as mandated under OCA Circular No. 50-95.[24] Clearly, respondent transgressed the bounden
duty of the court to the speedy and orderly dispensation of justice and thus, liable
for dishonesty. Dishonesty is a “disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or
defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or
integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition
to defraud, deceive or betray.”[25] Dishonesty is a serious
offense which reflects on the person’s character and exposes the moral decay
which virtually destroys his honor, virtue, and integrity.[26]
As observed by the OCA, the fact
that respondent issued official receipts of the court for the deposited amounts
made the deposit fiduciary funds or public funds which the Court is obligated
to return.[27] And fiduciary funds being in the nature of a
trust fund, those should not be withdrawn without the authority of the
court. Surely, respondent's conduct is
unbecoming of a clerk of court which warrants disciplinary action.
The Court cannot countenance any conduct, act or omission, committed by those involved in administering justice, which violates the norm of public accountability and which diminishes the faith of the people in the judiciary.[28]
Section 52, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as grave offenses with corresponding penalty of dismissal and suspension of six months and one day to one year, respectively, for the first offense.
While the Court is duty-bound to
sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline its errant employees and to weed
out those who are undesirable, it also has the discretion to temper the
harshness of its judgment with mercy.[29]
That respondent clerk of court is a first time offender and
has been with the judiciary for twenty two years, mitigate her liability and a
penalty of suspension of one year without pay with stern warning that a
repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more
severely, is just and reasonable.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent MARISSA ANGELES guilty of dishonesty and conduct unbecoming of a clerk of court. She is SUSPENDED for ONE YEAR WITHOUT PAY with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Moreover,
respondent is ordered
to pay complainant Beatriz F. Vilar the amount of
Seventy Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos, within fifteen (15) days upon
receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
[1] Rollo,
pp. 1-3.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Reyes-Domingo v.
Morales, 396 Phil. 150, 161 (2000).
[12] Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted in the
MTCC-OCC,
[13]
[14] Rollo,
pp. 100-101.
[15]
Dagsa-an v. Conag, 352 Phil. 619,
622 (1998).
[16]
Castelo v. Florendo, 459 Phil. 581, 595 (2003).
[17]
[18] Ibid.
[19] §1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution.
[20] 315 Phil. 681 (1995).
[21]
[22]
[23] Ibid.
[24] Collections in the Fiduciary Fund
should be deposited within twenty four (24) hours by the Clerk of Court with
the Land Bank of the
[25] Office of the
Court Administrator v. Ramos, A.M. No.
P-05-1966,
[26] Bartolata v. Julaton, A.M. No. P-02-1638,
[27] Rollo,
p. 128.
[28] Reyes v. Cabrera, A.M. No. P-05-2027,
[29] Reyes-Macabeo v. Valle, 448 Phil. 583, 590 (2003); Aquino v. Fernandez, 460
Phil. 1, 13 (2003).