EN BANC
|
Re: Report on the Judicial and Financial Audit Conducted
in the Municipal Trial Courts of Bayombong and Solano and the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, Aritao-Sta. Fe, All in Nueva Vizcaya |
A.M. No. 05-3-83-MTC Present: Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia, Velasco, Jr.,* NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. |
|
|
Promulgated: October
9, 2007 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
RESOLUTION
PER
CURIAM:
On
The
audit team found that as of audit date, MTC, Solano had 1,590 cases. Of these cases, 31 were submitted for
decision, 101 had pending motions/incidents for resolution, 595 were dormant,
113 had no further setting in the court calendar and 47 had not been acted upon
since the time of filing. The first two
groups of cases had not been decided or resolved within the 90-day reglementary
period.
On the
other hand, MTC, Bayombong had 1,442 cases.
Of these cases, two were submitted for decision, 71 had pending
motions/incidents for resolution, 1,015 had no further action for a
considerable length of time, 41 had no further setting in the court calendar
and 117 cases had no initial action since the time of filing.
As a
result of the audit, the OCA directed Judge Balut to
explain his failure to decide and resolve cases within the mandatory
period. He was also directed to inform
the Court of the causes of the delay in the movement of the dormant cases.
Judge
Balut explained that he failed to decide and resolve cases on time because of
his heavy caseload and designation as acting presiding judge in the MTCs of
Bayombong, Solano, Kayapa and Ambaguio.
He stated that he conducted hearings everyday, Mondays at Solano,
Tuesdays at Bayombong, Wednesdays and Thursdays at Aritao-Sta. Fe,[1]
and alternately in Ambaguio and Kayapa on Fridays. He claimed that his human capabilities had
already been taxed to the limits and that it would entail superhuman effort to timely
accomplish all the work in his various court assignments.
Judge
Balut also claimed that conducting preliminary investigations had exacerbated
his caseload. Furthermore, his lack of a
legal researcher contributed to his failure to act on the cases with
dispatch. He also alleged that as early
as 1998, he had sought exemption from the mandatory period to render judgment.
In
August 2003, another judicial audit was conducted in the MTCs of Solano and
Bayombong, as well as in the other courts presided over by Judge Balut. A comparison of the first and second audits of
both the Solano and Bayombong MTCs disclosed that a large number of cases
remained unacted upon by Judge Balut.
The Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Aritao-Sta. Fe, on the other hand, had 292
pending cases. There were no cases
submitted for decision and only one case had a pending motion for
resolution. However, there were 161
dormant cases and 19 cases with no further setting in the court calendar.
Judge
Balut explained that he failed to act on the cases pending in MCTC, Aritao-Sta.
Fe because of his designation in four other courts. He also claimed that the scheduling of cases
for hearing was solely undertaken by the Clerk of Court. However, after the audit, he had instructed
the concerned personnel to immediately calendar the cases which had no settings
yet. He had also immediately acted on
some dormant cases by dismissing or archiving them.
Aside from the judicial audit, a financial audit was also
conducted in the MTCs of Bayombong and Solano as well as the MCTC of
Aritao-Sta. Fe.
In the MTC, Bayombong, where Judith En. Salimpade was Clerk of Court II, the
audit team found an unremitted amount of P18,702.00
representing the court’s collection from P348,993.60 from January 1990 to August
2003. However, only P186,330.98
was remitted by Ms. Salimpade leaving a balance of P162,662.62; the
total Clerk of Court General Fund (CCGF) collections from January 1996 to
August 2003 (audit scope) showed an unremitted amount of P30,411.70; and
as of August 31, 2003 the Fiduciary Fund had a total cash shortage of P1,864,304.27
which covered the collections from 1995 to August 2003.
In sum,
the shortages in the various funds incurred by Salimpade as of P2,057,378.59.
Salimpade,
when asked about the shortages, explained that Judge Balut, since 1995 had been
getting money from the JDF collections.
She had given in to the requests of Judge Balut out of fear of him. She also admitted that she lent her
co-employees money which she took from her collections.
Parenthetically,
in September 2003, Judge Balut turned over P240,000.00
to Salimpade and the latter issued a certification[2]
stating that the former had completely settled his monetary accountability to
the MTC, Bayombong. Judge Balut
delivered to the Fiscal Monitoring Division, Court Management Office (CMO) OCA[3] the
certification and deposit slip[4] evidencing
the turnover of the P240,000.00.
The
audit team also found that Salimpade failed to regularly submit her monthly
report of collections, as required in Supreme Court Circular No. 32-93.[5] Consequently, Salimpade’s salaries were
withheld effective August 2003 to the present.
In the MTC,
Solano, the spot cash count on the court’s collection disclosed that Eduardo
Esconde, Clerk of Court, had an unremitted/undeposited cash on hand amounting
to P59,545.00.
However, the Official Receipts issued to cover said amounts were not
accounted for. The said cash amount was
deposited on
A review
of the receipts on file from May 2001 to July 2003 also showed a total cash
shortage of P106,527.80. However,
on
In the
MCTC, Aritao-Sta. Fe, the audit team found that Lydia Ramos,[7]
Clerk of Court, succeeded Eduardo S. Esconde on P540.00, part of the JDF
collections from P510.00. Mr. Esconde incurred during his incumbency a
cash shortage of P430.00 while Mrs. Ramos incurred a shortage of P80.00
as of P430.00. She deposited the amount
of P400.00 on P30.00. Withdrawals from the Fiduciary Fund account
on various dates, totaling P243,900.00 for the
refund and return of cash bonds to 20 litigants, were not supported by any
official court orders. Of the 20
litigants 15 did not acknowledge receipt of the amount refunded. The Fiduciary Fund collection of the court
from April 1996 to P2,064,978.00. As of P846,710.00 was
unaccounted for by Mr. Esconde and Mrs. Ramos.
Both denied that the shortages incurred were of their own doing and they
instead pointed to Judge Balut as the offender.[8]
Ramos
related to the audit team the constant requests/orders of Judge Balut to hand
over to him money from the Fiduciary Fund collections. In these instances, she requested Judge Balut
to affix his signature at the back portion of the withdrawal slips as the cash
recipient. However, not all of the
transactions were evidenced by an acknowledgement receipt. Ramos further stated that Judge Balut also
collected the money through Salvador Briones, Court Interpreter of
MCTC-Aritao-Sta. Fe, whose signature also appeared at the back portion of
withdrawal slips as cash recipient. The total
withdrawals from the Fiduciary Fund Account given to Judge Balut, as evidenced
by withdrawal slips bearing the signatures of Judge Balut and Briones, for the
benefit of the former, as cash recipients, amounted to P193,500.00.
Aside
from these, withdrawals from the Fiduciary Fund account totaling P90,500.00 were also given to Judge Balut. On the face of the slips of this class of
withdrawals were notations such as “Judge”, “for Judge”, “taken by Judge xxx”
and “given to Judge” written by Ramos.
On P207,774.42.
However,
before the final report on the court’s shortages was completed, various amounts
totaling P802,299.82 were deposited by Judge Balut, Esconde and Ramos in
the court’s LBP Account No. 3251-0544-51, as restitution/payment of part of the
shortage of P846,710.00.
As of
August, 2004, Ramos had fully settled the balance of her accountability. On the other hand, Esconde still had a
balance of accountability in MCTC, Aritao-Sta. Fe of P58,100.00 which, as of the time this case was submitted by the
OCA for the Court’s consideration, has remained unsettled.
Finding
the respective explanations of Judge Balut, Salimpade, Esconde and Ramos
unsatisfactory, the OCA recommended to this Court on March 17, 2005 that:
A. [The OCA] report be
docketed as a regular administrative matter against Judge Alexander Balut,
Clerk of Court Judith En. Salimpade, Clerk of Court
B. Judge
Alexander Balut be DISMISSED from the service for gross neglect of duty,
gross inefficiency, dishonesty and grave misconduct with forfeiture of all of
the benefits and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any
public office, including government owned or controlled corporation.
C. Ms. Judith En.
Salimpade be DISMISSED from the service for dishonesty and grave
misconduct and directed to restitute the amount of P1,817,378.59
representing the amount of shortages in her collections. The Office of Administrative Services, OCA be
directed to compute Ms. Salimpade’s leave credits and forward the same to the
Finance Division, Fiscal Management Office-OCA which shall compute the money
value of the same, the amount to be deducted from the computed shortages to be
restituted.
D. Legal Office,
OCA be directed to file appropriate criminal charges against Judge Alexander Balut,
Ms. Lydia O. Ramos, and Ms. Judith En. Salimpade.
E. A hold
departure order be issued against Ms. Judith Salimpade and Eduardo Esconde and
Judge Alexander Balut.
F. Mrs. Lydia Ramos
be DIRECTED to pay the amount of P30.00 representing her shortage
in the collection of Clerk of Court General Fund, submitting copy of the
machine validated deposit slip to the Fiscal Monitoring Division, CMO and be FINED
in the amount of P5,000.00 for violation of Supreme Court and OCA
Circulars which shall be deducted from her retirement benefits.
G. Mr. Eduardo
Esconde be immediately relieved as accountable officer of MTC Solano and he be
directed to restitute the shortages in the fiduciary fund account in the amount
of P58,000.00, when he was Clerk of Court of the MCTC, Aritao-Sta. Fe,
Nueva Vizcaya, submitting the machine validated deposit slip to the Financial
Monitoring Division, CMO.[10]
In its
A.
In the matter of the audits conducted in the MTCs of
Bayombong and Solano and MCTC Aritao-Sta. Fe, Nueva Vizcaya, Judge Alexander S.
Balut be fined P10,000.00, with the stern warning that a repetition of
the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
B.
The recommendations as to the other court personnel
involved stand as per the Memorandum to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
dated
We agree
with the recommendations of the OCA with some modifications.
The
records show that Judge Balut failed to decide 33 cases[13]
and resolve 101 pending motions/incidents within the required period.
From his
explanation of having to conduct hearings in practically a different court sala
for each day of the week, the Court can appreciate that Judge Balut had a heavy
workload. However, he cannot be totally
excused from liability. A heavy workload
due to additional work, as acting presiding judge in other courts, is not
sufficient justification for the delay.[14]
Judges are allowed, upon motion or
letter-request, extensions of the reglementary period in deciding cases.[15] Judge Balut should have sought an extension
for the resolution of the cases before the mandated time for their resolution
expired. Likewise, we note that Judge
Balut indeed made a general request for exemption from compliance with
the mandated reglementary period to decide cases but notably, he did not
specify the case numbers, case titles and how much time he needed to finish the
cases. Such a request was irregular and could
not be the basis for absolving him. Cases age at different times; hence, the need to specify the
particular case for which the extension is being requested. A definite date for extension will also help
the judge and the Court to gauge how long a reasonable extension would be. Likewise, the judge can also concretely plan
how much time he should spend on deciding each case. This encourages proper time management and
the orderly administration of justice. A
general request for exemption embracing all cases would provide judges a catch-all
excuse for neglecting to decide; or worse, choosing not to decide by reason of
money or malice, any case at all. Thus, a
request for an all-embracing exemption should not spare a judge from
administrative sanction for failing to decide cases on time.
Neither
can we accept Judge Balut’s excuse that he had no legal researcher. He had only to request from the Executive
Judge or the Office of the Court Administrator the detail of needed researchers
instead of allowing a vacancy, or leave of absence of his staff, to deprive the
public of vital services, especially where the court has an unusually heavy
caseload for a given period.[16]
The
Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly because
delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people
in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute.[17]
For
failing to decide 33 cases and 101 motions/incidents within the required
period, without properly requesting for an extension, Judge Balut should be
penalized. Undue delay in rendering decisions
is classified as a less serious charge under Section 9,[18]
Rule 140 of the Rules of Court for which the sanction prescribed is suspension
from office without salary for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3)
months; or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but
not exceeding P20,000.00. A fine
of P20,000.00 should be proper under the
circumstances.
Now, as
to the financial audit.
Supreme
Court Administrative Circular No. 8A-93[19]
provides the guidelines for all Clerks of Court concerning the proper
administration of court funds. This
Circular mandates that all fiduciary collections shall be deposited immediately
by the Clerk of Court concerned, upon receipt thereof, with the Land Bank of
the
Furthermore,
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5-93[20]
provides that collections for the JDF shall be deposited everyday with the
local or nearest branch of the Land Bank of the P500.00,
the same shall be deposited immediately even before the days indicated.
As the acting/duly appointed presiding judge, Judge Balut
had the responsibility of seeing to it that the respective clerks of court in
his different court assignments performed their duties and observed the circulars
issued by the Supreme Court. In Report
on the Financial Audit in RTC,
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.[22]
(Emphasis supplied.)
The
records show, prima facie, that Judge Balut dismally failed to discharge
his responsibility. Worse, by “borrowing”
money from the court funds, he knowingly made the clerks of court violate
circulars on the proper administration of court funds. However, considering that Judge Balut was not
given proper opportunity to explain his side on the results of the financial
audit, we cannot, in the present case, justly rule on any administrative liability
that he may have incurred.
Nevertheless,
his signatures on the withdrawal slips as recipient of the cash withdrawn from
the funds with MCTC, Aritao-Sta. Fe, and on the deposit slips; the
certification which he made regarding his accountability; the certifications
made by the involved clerks of court to the effect that he had settled his
accountabilities, when taken with the statements of Salimpade, Esconde and
Ramos that he asked for and was handed sums of money from the funds in their
custody, constitute sufficient basis for the initiation of criminal cases
against him, in particular for violation of Republic Act No. 3019, Section
3(a).[23]
As to the liabilities of Judith En. Salimpade. As of P2,057,378.59. She confessed to giving in to the requests of
Judge Balut for money, which she however failed to document. She also admitted to taking money from her
collections to lend to her co-employees.
Undeniably, she failed to comply with the circulars of the court
requiring the immediate deposit of collections for the various funds in her
custody. She treated court funds as if these
were her own and did with these as she pleased.
This Court cannot tolerate or condone such conduct. As custodians of court funds and revenues, clerks
of court have always been reminded of their duty to immediately deposit the
various funds received by them to the authorized government depositories for
they are not supposed to keep the funds in their custody.[24] Failure to do so constitutes gross neglect of
duty, dishonesty and grave misconduct,[25]
which offenses carry with them the penalty of dismissal from office. The
said failure also constitutes sufficient basis for the initiation of a criminal
case against her for malversation, as defined under Article 217[26]
of the Revised Penal Code.
As to
Eduardo Esconde. The OCA recommends that
the administrative sanction against him be held in abeyance until full
financial audit of his books of account in Solano has been undertaken, so that
his full accountability can be established.
We agree with OCA on the need for a full financial audit. However, with regard to administrative
liability, we find the evidence on record sufficient for us to make a decision.
In the MTC, Solano, Esconde incurred a shortage of P106,527.80,
which he deposited only on P472,900.00 in the Fiduciary Fund
and restituted only P414,800.00 on P58,100.00. Esconde claims Judge
Balut borrowed money from the court funds.
Clearly, on this score, he violated Court directives on the proper
administration of the various funds. He
had no authority to allow anyone, not even his superior, to use or borrow the
court funds for personal purposes. To
repeat, as clerk of court, he has the responsibility to deposit all collections
upon receipt thereof with the authorized government depository bank[27]
and to see to it that withdrawals are made only for the purposes stated in the
Court circulars. Failure to fulfill
these responsibilities constitutes gross neglect of duty which deserves
administrative sanction. Aside from
being the custodian of the court’s funds and revenues, property and premises, a
clerk of court is also entrusted with the primary responsibility of correctly
and effectively implementing regulations regarding fiduciary funds.[28] Under the Civil Service Rules and the Omnibus
Rules implementing it, gross neglect of duty is penalized with dismissal from
the service.
As in
the case of Salimpade, Esconde’s failure to turn over the funds in his custody
and to adequately explain and present evidence thereon constitutes sufficient
basis for the initiation of a criminal case against him for malversation.
Lastly,
we discuss the liability of Lydia Ramos.
The audit showed discrepancies between the reported total collections
and the actual amount remitted to the Clerk of Court General Fund. Likewise, it revealed shortages in the
Fiduciary Fund account. Although Ramos settled
the shortages, she is nevertheless still administratively liable[29]
for the violations of Supreme Court Administrative Circulars Nos. 5-93 and
8A-93. Delay in the remittance of
collections constitutes neglect of duty for which she is administratively liable.
The failure to remit judiciary
collections on time deprives the court of interest that may be earned if the
amounts are deposited in a bank.[30] However, in determining the applicable
penalty in this case, the Court noted that Ramos made the earnest efforts to
properly administer the funds in her custody; that she fully remitted all her
collections; that she has no outstanding accountabilities; that she has already
retired last June 5, 2004; and for humanitarian considerations,[31]
we deem a fine of P5,000.00 sufficient penalty.[32]
WHEREFORE the Court finds and declares:
1. Judge Alexander S.
Balut GUILTY of undue delay in
deciding 33 cases submitted for decision and in failing to resolve 101 motions within
the 90-day reglementary period. He is FINED twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
shall be dealt with more severely.
2. Judith En. Salimpade
GUILTY of gross neglect of duty,
dishonesty and grave misconduct. She is DISMISSED from the service. She is DIRECTED
to RESTITUTE the amount of P1,817,378.59
representing the amount of shortages in her collections. Her withheld salaries are to be applied to her
accountabilities. The Office of Administrative
Services, OCA is DIRECTED to compute
Ms. Salimpade’s leave credits and forward the same to the Finance Division,
Fiscal Management Office-OCA which shall compute the money value of the same,
the amount to be deducted from the shortages to be restituted.
3. Eduardo Esconde GUILTY of gross neglect of duty. He is DISMISSED
from the service. He is also ORDERED
to restitute his accountabilities in the amount of P58,100.00
4. Lydia O. Ramos GUILTY of neglect of duty. She is FINED
P5,000, which should be deducted from her
retirement benefits.
The Office
of the Court Administrator Legal Office is DIRECTED
to file appropriate criminal charges against Judge Alexander Balut, Judith En.
Salimpade and Eduardo Esconde.
SO ORDERED.
Chief Justice
|
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 |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
(On leave) PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
|
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice |
|
* On leave.
[1] The official station of Judge Alexander Balut.
[2] Rollo, p. 631.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Rollo, p. 126.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Vda. de Castro v. Cawaling, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1465,
[15]
[16] Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the
MTCC, Branch 5,
[17] Report
on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC,
[18] SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. – Less serious charges include:
1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case;
x x x x
[19] Effective March 1, 1993, all Clerks of Courts of lower Courts are hereby DIRECTED to deposit all collections from bailbonds, rental deposits and other fiduciary collections, upon receipt thereof, following the same guidelines laid out in Circular No. 13-92 of this Court dated March 1, 1992, with the LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP), the authorized government depository bank for the Judiciary.
x x x x
[20] x x x x
5. Systems and Procedures:
x x x x
c. In the RTC, SDC, MetTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC
and SCC. – The daily collections for the Fund in these courts shall be
deposited every day with the local or nearest LBP branch “For the
account of the Judiciary Development Fund, Supreme Court, P500.00, the same shall be deposited immediately even before
the days before indicated.
x
x x x
[21] A.M. No. 96-1-25-RTC,
[22] Id. at 425, also cited in Report on the Financial Audit Conducted on
the Books of Accounts of OIC Melinda Deseo, MTC, General Trias, Cavite, A.M. No. 99-11-157-MTC, August 7, 2000,
337 SCRA 347, 353.
[23] SECTION 3. Corrupt practices of
public officers. -- In addition to acts or omissions of public
officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:
x
x x x
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another
public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and
regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection
with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded,
induced or influenced to commit such violation or offense.
x
x x x
[24] Report
on the Financial Audit on the Books of Accounts of Mr. Delfin T. Polido, Former
Clerk of Court, MCTC, Victoria-La Paz, Tarlac, A.M. No. 05-11-320-MCTC,
[25] See Re: Report on the Judicial and Financial Audit of
RTC-Br. 4, Panabo, Davao del Norte, A.M. No. 95-4-143-RTC, March 13, 1998,
287 SCRA 510, 529; Office of the Court Administrator
v. Fortaleza, A.M. No. P-01-1524 (Formerly A.M. No. 01-2-14-MTC),
[26] ART.
217. Malversation
of public funds or property – Presumption of malversation. – Any public
officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public
funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate
or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other
person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall
otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or
property, shall suffer:
x x x x
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses.
[27] Circular No. 13-92, dated
[28] Report on the Financial Audit on the Books of Accounts of Mr. Delfin T. Polido, Former Clerk of Court, MCTC, Victoria-La Paz, Tarlac, supra note 24, at 575-576.
[29]
[30]
[31] Re: Misappropriation of the Judiciary Fund Collections
by Ms. Juliet C. Banag, Clerk of Court, MTC, Plaridel, Bulacan, A.M. No.
P-02-1641,
[32] Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty.
Paredes, A.M. No. P-06-2103 (Formerly A.M. No. 05-7-430-RTC),