Re: Financial REPORT ON A.M. No. 08-1-30-MCTC
THE Audit Conducted in
the MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT Present:
TRIAL COURT, APALIT-
SAN SIMON, Pampanga PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
CARPIO,
CARPIO
MORALES,
AZCUNA,
NAZARIO,
VELASCO,
JR.,
NACHURA,
REYES,
DE
CASTRO,
BRION, JJ.
Promulgated:
April 10, 2008
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Per Curiam:
Before us is an administrative case which arose from the Memorandum[1] submitted to Deputy Court
Administrator Jose P. Perez dated 29 November 2007 prepared by Irene R. Malonzo, team leader of the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) Financial Audit Team, charging Maria Algabre
Chico (respondent), Clerk of Court II, Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Apalit-San Simon, Pampanga of gross dishonesty.
On 9
to 13 December 2002, a Judicial Audit Team made an inventory of cases of Judge
Valentino B. Nogoy, then Presiding Judge of MCTC Apalit-San Simon, Pampanga, who was due to retire from the
service on
On 23
to P132,400.00 comprising the undeposited
collection of the Fiduciary Fund was
found in respondent’s possession. At the time the Land Bank of the
Ho
then prepared a draft report on the audit conducted but the same was not
finalized and was submitted to the Court on account of respondent’s failure to
satisfy the requirements laid down by Ho.[4] The report remained
unattended to until Presiding Judge Teodora R.
Gonzales of MCTC of Apalit-San Simon, Pampanga
informed the Court in her Letter-request dated 3 November 2004 of her
observations after an inventory of the trial court’s dockets, viz.: (a) the
discrepancy in the amount of money which should have been deposited in the
court’s account; (b) at least four (4) cases, reportedly dismissed and
withdrawn, were still being tried in court; (c) no withdrawals had been made
but there was failure to deposit the bonds and supersedeas
bonds within twenty-four (24) hours as required is noticeable; and (d) despite
instructions to deposit the missing amount and to make an accurate report of
the fiduciary account at a given time, respondent failed to do so.[5]
On
Date of Order |
Case Number/Title |
Amount |
|
03-13 to 03-14/PP vs. Josefina
Alfonso |
|
|
02-129/PP vs. Albert dela Cruz |
3,000.00 |
|
9308, 9310 to 9312/PP vs.
Josephine Oida |
8,000.00 |
|
02-152 to 02-153/PP vs. Carmelita Bicomong |
10,000.00 |
|
01-583/PP vs. Claudio Sumang |
2,000.00 |
|
Total |
|
In
respondent’s undated explanation, she admitted her failure to deposit the cash
bonds and offered the excuse that she had used the
collection to defray her family expenses. Along with the explanation was a
certification dated
On
On
On
P63,861.20 had not been remitted to the proper accounts. As such, Judge Gonzales ordered respondent to
explain her inaction.[11]
In her
explanation dated
In
view of Judge Gonzales’s requests, as well as her observations on the manner of
collections by respondent, another team (the second team) was authorized to
finalize the financial examination from
In
the morning of P10,960.40 for the period between 2 July and
Denomination |
Pieces |
Equivalent |
|
1 |
|
200.00 |
1 |
200.00 |
100.00 |
8 |
800.00 |
Total Cash in Hand |
|
|
The shortage is computed as
follows:
Fund |
OR Issued |
Period |
Amount |
JDF |
6421736
to 642150, 64218011 |
|
|
SAJF |
6421769 to 6421785 |
|
6,977.20 |
LRF |
0557025 to 0557030 |
|
120.00 |
Total Collected amount for the
period |
|||
*Less: Total Cash on HAND on |
|||
Balance of Accountability (SHORTAGE) upon demand Of the undeposited collections as of |
The second team then
required respondent to produce the missing amount for the duration of the audit
period but to no avail. The amount was only deposited on 21 and
Following
are the other significant audit findings by the second team contained in its Report:[14]
Particulars |
JDF |
GF |
SAJF |
Mediation |
Period Covered |
March, 1985 to June
2007 |
Nov. 1990 to Nov.
2003 |
|
August 2004 to |
Total Collection |
826,984.52 |
209,137.60 |
287,847.60 |
136,000.00 |
Total Remittance |
816,836.70 |
203,132.20 |
250,525.80 |
125,500.00 |
Balance |
10,147.82 |
6,014.40 |
37,321.80 |
10,500.00 |
Less: GF coll.
Erroneously remitted to JDF account |
10,566.20 |
10,566.20[?] |
|
|
Less: SAJF
Collection erroneously deposited to GF account |
|
(4,599.80) |
4,599.80 |
|
Total |
20,714.02 |
|
32,722.00 |
|
Less: Deposit made on |
2,631.20 |
|
5,268.80 |
|
Balance of
Accountability (SHORTAGE) per Reconciliation |
18,082.82 |
|
27,453.20 |
|
Add: Unreceipted
Marriage Solemnization |
11,026.00 |
|
74.00 |
|
Balance of
Accountabilities/SHORTAGE |
29,108.82 |
48.00 |
29,527.20 |
10,500.00 |
For
the above funds which legal fees are remitted to the Supreme Court, the team
observed the following deviation to the prescribed guidelines under the
Government Accounting & Auditing Manual (GAAM) and SC Circulars, to wit:
1)
Delayed
remittances, specifically for the period from April to June 2007, for JDF &
SAJF collections:
JDF
Period |
Amount Collected |
Amount Remitted |
Date Remitted |
Balance (OVER)/UNDER |
April, 2007 |
9,256.00 |
1,683.60 |
|
7,572.40 |
May, 2007 |
8,280.42 |
3,030.40 |
|
5,250.02 |
June 2007 |
7,956.80 |
2,631.20 |
|
5,325.60 |
SAJF
Period |
Amount Collected |
Amount Remitted |
Date Remitted |
Balance (OVER)/UNDER |
April, 2007 |
23,494.00 |
4,566.40 |
|
18,927.60 |
May, 2007 |
4,258.00 |
4,258.00 |
|
|
June 2007 |
13,993.20 |
200.00 |
|
13,793.20 |
Article 1, Section 111 of GAAM provides that all collections totaling to
P500.00 and more should be remitted within 24 hours upon collection or
when it is below P500.00 on a weekly basis.
2)
The unreceipted
Solemnization Fee which totaled P11,100.00 proves that no collections
were received for the service rendered.
It is the responsibility of the Clerk of Court/Accountable Officer to
make sure that the prescribed legal fees are collected before solemnization of
marriage would take place.
The
team recommended the “NO RECEIPT, NO SOLEMNIZATION” policy to Ms. Chico and
Judge Gonzales, to prevent the same infraction.
The team also stressed that the total unreceipted
and unremitted amount of P11,100.00 will form
part of Ms. Chico’s accountabilities.
These were already included with the final accountabilities computed
above.
3)
The
official Cashbook was not certified by Ms. Chico as to the correctness of the
entries of transactions indicated herein at the end of the month.
4)
The term noticed the withdrawals of interest earned from Fiduciary Fund account
amounting to P2,398.29 on
Summarized
below are the Accountabilities for amounts held in Trust by the Court:
Particulars |
Fiduciary Fund |
Sheriff Trust Fund |
Period covered |
1995 to |
August 2004 to |
Total collection including MTO
deposit amounting to |
|
|
Total Withdrawals for the same
period |
1,182,000.00 |
4,186.00 |
Unwithdrawn Balance as of |
1,160,100.00 |
113,814.00 |
Less: Adjusted Bank Balance as of |
1,071,100.00 |
103,814.00 |
Balance of Accountability/SHORTAGE |
89,000.00 |
10,000.00 |
The
two (2) trust funds are maintained by the Court in one Savings Account under
LBP SA#3421-0053-10. The team advised
Ms. Chico and Judge Gonzales to:
- Open an account for
Sheriff Trust Fund (STF), both of them should be the signatories in an “AND”
capacity;
- Have a separate cashbook for STF;
- Issue official
receipts separate from fiduciary fund or use a different booklet(s) of official
receipt(s) upon collection; and
- Regularly report on
a monthly basis all transactions of STF to SC Revenue Section, Accounting
Division, Financial Management Office, OCA.
SHERIFF TRUST FUND
1.
It
was also observed that release of transportation allowance to process server,
Jimmy Gonzales was not authorized by Judge Teodora R.
Gonzales. A mere acknowledgement receipt
of Ms. Gonzales serves as proof of its disbursement. Administrative Circular No. 35-2004, Sec. 10,
13th par. states that:
x x x
the Sheriff, process server or other court authorized person shall submit for
its approval (by Presiding/Executive) a Statement of Estimated Travel Expense
for service of summon and court processes.
After service, a statement of LIQUIDATION shall be submitted to the
court for approval, i.e., Presiding/Executive Judge.
The team warned Ms. Chico that she
will be held accountable for the travel/transportation expenses incurred by Mr.
Gonzales if the latter would not be able to submit the liquidation report. Thus, she was advised to demand from Mr.
Gonzales to liquidate the cash advances made by him, otherwise she will pay for
the unliquidated amounts.
The
team also informed Judge Gonzales to effect the approval of the Statement of
Estimated Travel Expenses (SETE) of Mr. Gonzales before a cash advance
equivalent to the amount stated in SETE shall be released to him by the Clerk
of Court.
2.
Also, when Civil Case No. 06-06 was filed, the P1,000.00 due to STF
account was not collected. The team advised Ms. Chico that the P1,000.00
to be paid from CC#06-06 is part of the shortage balance of P10,000.00.
3.
Further,
upon opening a separate savings account for STF the shortage balance of P10,000.00
should be restituted first, to complete the total Unwithdrawn
Sheriff Trust Fund amounting to P113,814.00.
FIDUCIARY FUND
Aside
from the computed shortage amounting to P89,000.00 the team was
alarmed with the following observations, to wit:
I.
Although actually refunded to the parties and remitted to the JDF account at
the time of the audit, numerous
WITHDRAWALS and CONFISCATED cash bonds were
not reported to the Supreme Court enumerated below.
OR NO. |
CASE NO. |
NAME OF PARTY |
Date Collected |
Amount Collected |
Date of Court Order |
Amount Withdrawn |
Date Refunded |
Amount Confiscated |
Date Confiscated |
13115321 |
02-129 |
Albert dela Cruz |
|
3,000.00 |
|
|
|
3,000.00 |
|
13115314 |
2002-89 |
Eliza Cariño |
|
1,000.00 |
|
|
|
1,000.00 |
|
13115333 |
02-89 |
Eliza Cariño |
|
2,000.00 |
|
|
|
2,000.00 |
|
13115343 |
02-41 |
Silvestre Quiambao |
|
85,000.00 |
|
85,000.00 |
|
|
|
13115340 |
04-55 |
Reynoso Capulong |
|
5,000.00 |
|
5,000.00 |
|
|
|
13115339 |
04-55 |
Flora Marcos |
|
5,000.00 |
|
5,000.00 |
|
|
|
13115307 |
01-601 |
Jesus Espinosa |
|
6,000.00 |
|
6,000.00 |
|
|
|
13115324 |
02-223 |
Roberto Lumiares |
|
5,000.00 |
|
5,000.00 |
|
|
|
13115342 |
03-122 |
Normita Cunanan |
|
1,000.00 |
|
1,000.00 |
|
|
|
9137964 |
9948 |
Rogelio Mutuc |
|
3,000.00 |
|
3,000.00 |
|
|
|
13115337 |
03-13 to 14 |
Josefina Alfonso |
|
1,000.00 |
|
|
|
1,000.00 |
|
Unreceipted |
9308-9312 |
Josephine Oida |
|
8,000.00 |
|
3,000.00 |
|
8,000.00 |
|
13115317 |
02-152 & 153 |
Carmelita Bicomong |
|
10,000.00 |
|
|
|
10,000.00 |
|
13115335 |
01-583 |
Claudio Sumang |
|
2,000.00 |
|
|
|
2,000.00 |
|
13115336 |
04-05 |
Elenita de Vera |
|
6,000.00 |
|
|
|
6,000.00 |
|
13115308 |
01-683 & 684 |
Homer Caylao |
|
4,000.00 |
|
4,000.00 |
|
|
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
147,000.00 |
|
114,000.00 |
|
33,000.00 |
|
As presented, a total of P147,000.00
was refunded and confiscated cash bonds were RESTITUTED by Ms. Chico. This also
represents a portion of the cash collections she didn’t deposit upon its
receipt and admittedly used for her own family’s benefit.
Ms.
Chico admitted to the Team that these cash bonds were not deposited to the bank
(LBP) when they were collected, the team found that [these] undeposited
collections ballooned to a maximum amount of P368,400.00 for the period
September 2000 to June 30, 2007(See schedule A for details). The amount of P368,400.00 was reduced
to P89,000.00 because Ms. Chico returned the amount collected to the
bondsmen/accused, if there is a court order to release the same or there is an
order of confiscation, broken down as follows:
Total Undeposited Collections P368,400.00
Less: Cash found on hand during
The First Audit P132,400.00
Refunded Cash bonds as of
Confiscated Cash bonds transferred
To JDF 33,000.00 279,400.00
Shortage amount as of P 89,000.00
The shortage balance amounting to P89,000.00
was restituted on P132,000.00 was found on hand during
the first surprise cash count by the first Audit Team which was deposited to
the nearest LBP (San Fernando Branch) only on
Ms.
Chico failed to report the said withdrawals to the court because she did not
know how to present the unlikely transactions in her Monthly Report of
Collections/Deposit & Withdrawals because Judge Gonzales would scrutinize
all the transactions in the report.
Since Judge Gonzales has directed
Ms. Chico to present to her the Court’s passbook to release the cash bonds to
the accused/bondsman amounting to P114,000.00 and to deposit all
confiscated cash bonds to the JDF account amounting to P33,000.00 with
court orders, she has no recourse but to restitute the said amounts which she used
for personal gain, thus, leaving a shortage balance of P89,000.00. This shortage balance was also restituted on
II. FORGED SIGNATURES:
a)
CASE NO. 02-152
to 02-153, payee, Carmelita Bicomong, under SC OR# 13115317 collected on July 16,
2002, amounting to P10,000.00 was reported to the Accounting
Division, FMO-OCA to have been withdrawn and refunded on March 4, 2004
with Court Order apparently signed by
Judge Roy Gironella, but was only ordered CONFISCATED
by Judge Teodora Gonzales on October 19, 2005.
Attached to the Monthly Report submitted
to Accounting Division, FMO-OCA when this case was allegedly withdrawn on March 4, 2004, were withdrawal slip, “duly
signed” by Judge Roy Gironella,, copy of Judge Gironela’s order marked only with “ORIGINAL SIGNED”, and
acknowledgement receipt allegedly signed by Carmelita Bicomong.
b)
CASE NO. 02-27 to 02-31, payee, Luisa Manarang,
under OR# 13115310 collected on February 2, 2002, amounting to P10,000.00
reported to the Accounting Division, FMO-OCA to have been withdrawn and
refunded on March 4, 2004 but the casewas
actually DISMISSED only on September 23, 2004 by Judge Gonzales.
Attached to the Monthly Report
submitted to Accounting Division, FMO-OCA when this case was allegedly withdrawn were withdrawal
slip, “duly signed” by Judge Gironela, copy of Judge Gironella’s order marked only “ORIGINAL signed”, and
acknowledgment receipt allegedly signed by Luisa Manarang.
c)
These
two mentioned cash bonds (items a & b) were questioned by Judge Gonzales
because they were already reported withdrawn but the cases were still being
actively tried by the court at the time she assumed office. The bonds in both
cases were eventually ordered confiscated and withdrawn on
The depository bank did not question
the validity of the withdrawal slips because they were apparently signed by
then Judge Gironella and the court order having
stamped with “Original Signed.”
Ms. Chico confided that she prepared
the court orders and intentionally marked them as “original signed’ making it
appear that Judge Gironella signed the withdrawals
slips, she forged his signature to complete the two (2) signatories required by
the bank which Clerk of Court and the Presiding/Executive Judge of the Court
To make matters worse Ms. Chico also
forged the signatures of claimants, Carmelita Bicomong
and Luisa Manarang to show that the said cash bonds
were already acknowledged by them.
When the team learned about this
anomaly, they instructed Ms. Chico and Judge Gonzales to require the claimants
to submit photocopy of valid ID’s to substantiate the signatures of the
claimants apart from the requirements as stated by the SC Circular 50-95. The
team asked Ms. Chico to execute an Affidavit that everything she disclosed to
the team are true and correct.
III.
TAMPERED RECEIPT:
Supreme
Court O.R.# 13115334 was TWICE used for cases nos. 03-93 and 9308-9311,
amounting to P40,000.00 under payees’ name, Tirso
Lacanilao collected on January 12, 2004 and P8,000.00
Josephine Oida on February 18, 2004, respectively.
Both collections were found to be undeposited and
unreported.
The
copy of O.R. No. 13115334 bearing Josephine Oida’s
name, amounting to P8,000.00 was only a facsimile copy of the supposed
“Original” sheet of the receipt which was attached to the case folder. This was subsequently ordered confiscated in
favor of JDF account by Judge Gonzales on
The
O.R. that bears the name of Tirso Lacanilao,
amounting to P40,000.00, Case No. 03-93 is still ACTIVE and the cash
bond is still outstanding.
When
team came across this, Ms. Chico voluntarily gave the information that this was
actually an UNRECEIPTED collection. The team considered this as a TAMPERED
RECEIPT. According to Ms. Chico when
Josephine Oida posted her bond amounting to P8,000.00
on February 18, 2004, Ms. Chico did not issue an official receipt, and to
appear that a cash bond was collected she made a photocopy of the original
sheet of issued O.R. #13115334, erased the contents of it, xeroxed
the same again, ALTERING its content, after which attaching the same to the
case folder of Ms. Oida.
The
collected amount from Ms. Josephine Oida, amounting
to P8,000.00 is not only an example of a tampered receipt but also an unreceipted collection, with the intention of concealing
the transaction.
The
standard requirements to make a refund of a legitimate cash bond are (1) Court
Order duly signed by a Judge; (2) acknowledgement receipt signed by the
claimant; (3) a withdrawal slip signed by both the Executive/Presiding Judge
and Clerk of Court; and (4) surrendered original copy of O.R. issued.
The
team was appalled by the above observations that lead (sic) them to be
suspicious with the entries of all records and documents which Ms. Chico has
presented them. Because of what has
transpired on the said cases, the team decided to collate all refunded cash
bonds without proper identification and required Ms. Chico to present any
Identification that will substantiate the release of the same.
A
list of refunded cash bonds was provided to Ms. Chico by the team totaling to P380,000.00
which the team considered as DISALLOWED withdrawals until Ms. Chico can provide
a proper identification for each refunded cash bond. It was stressed and emphasized
to Ms. Chico by the team that this amount of P380,000.00 will form part
of her accountability if ever she fails to present the required documents.
Judge
Teodora Gonzales, Ms. Maria Chico, Ms. Ana Marie Male
and the Financial Audit Team were present during the exit conference on
Ms.
Chico was given ten (10) working days to strictly comply with all the
requirements, so the Team can submit the necessary report to the court on time.
On
P155,036.02
broken down as follows:
• Judiciary Development Fund P 18,082.82
• Special Allowances for the
Judiciary 27,453.20
• Sheriff Trust Fund 10,000.00
• Mediation Fund 10,500.00
• Fiduciary Fund 89,000.00
Total Cast Accountability P 155,036.02
Except
from the shortage incurred for General Fund amounting to P48.00 which she tried
to deposit to the LBP for the account of General fund, but was informed by the
Bank that the account was no longer active.
So, the team advised Ms. Chico to pay the amount directly to the Revenue
Section, Accounting Div. OCA, Supreme Court.
Together
with all the proof of remittances for all restituted amounts is a letter explanation
dated
-Delayed
remittances particularly on the period April, May, June 2007 for JDF, SAJF,
Mediation Fund and Sheriff Trust fund – “humbly admitted to have been used
by ME due to financial problems when her 73 year old husband got sick and has
to be medically attended to, not to mention nursing her epileptic daughter who
has been suffering from repeated ceasures (sic), who
with her two (2) kids were abandoned by her husband and are now solely
dependent on ME for support.”
-Uncollected
Solemnization Fees amounting to P11,160.00 – “. . . have started
contacting the parties concerned and hopefully will be able to remit the said
amount to its respective . . . NO RECEIPT, NO SOLEMNIZATION policy will be
adhered to.”
-Disbursing
the Sheriff Trust Fund without proper authorization from the Presiding Judge Teodora Gonzales – “. . . I admit made a mistake in
allowing or giving Jimmy Gonzales, our Junior Process Server cash allowances
without having prepared the necessary papers for his travel expenses in serving
summons.” (par. 3, page 2).
-Money
Exhibits of Jueteng Cases deposited with ASCOM
Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. – “ . . .
ALL of us, employees of this court deemed to WISE to deposit said
exhibits with ASCOM,. . . during the period
-On cash
bonds that were refunded and confiscated – “. . . the undersigned humbly
admits that she did NOT deposit said cash bounds and when the cases were
dismissed, she refunded the cash bond of the accused from her personal money
which the undersigned admit (sic) is a GROSS
Violation of the rules and deeply regrets said acts.” (par. 6, page 2).
-On
Criminal Case Nos. 02-152 & 02-153 where the team found Ms. Chico forged
Judge Gironela’s and the two (2) claimants, Carmelita
Bicomong & Luisa Manarang’s
signatures – “. . . the undersigned in all honesty, humbly admits that she was the one who caused the withdrawals of said cash bonds, and that
said cases were not yet dismissed.
She needed money for her family….” (par. 7, page 2)
-On the
tampered official receipt (OR# 13115334) and unreceipted
collection under Criminal Case No. 03-93, - “.. undersigned ADMITS that she
used the same receipt for Criminal Case No. 9308,9310 to 93120- PP vs.
Josephine Oida in the amount of P8,000.00.” (par. 8,
page 2).
Summary of Cash Accountabilities of
Ms. Maria Chico[15]
Particulars |
Money Value |
Requirements to be
Submitted |
Refunded Cash Bonds |
|
Identification for each claimants to authenticate their
signatures |
Marriage Solemnization |
11,100.00 |
Proof of receipt upon solemnization |
Total |
|
|
Based on the foregoing, the team recommended
that:
1. The report of the team be DOCKETED
as a regular administrative matter against MARIA ALGABRE CHICO, Clerk of
Court II, MCTC Apalit-San Simon, Pampanga;
2.
[sic]
3.
Ms. MARIA ALGABRE
Be DISMISSED from the service for
gross honesty with forfeiture of all her benefits and with prejudice to
reemployment in any government agency, including government-owned or controlled
corporations;
Be
DIRECTED to:
a.
SUBMIT
identifications of the claimants of all withdrawn cash bonds amounting to P380,000.00;
otherwise RESTITUTE the said amount in the Fiduciary Fund Account;
b.
ACCOUNT for
the Marriage Solemnization fees amounting to P11,100.00, otherwise
deposit the same to their respective funds.
4.
Judge
TEODORA R. GONZALES, Presiding Judge, MCTC Apalit-San
Simon, Pampanga be DIRECTED to;
EXPLAIN why she didn’t relieve Ms. Maria
Chico from her duties and responsibilities when she first discovered her
alleged irregularities and the succeeding examinations of her collections;
DESIGNATE a competent and honest personnel of
the Court to replace Ms. Chico as collecting officer;
CAUSE the transfer and deposit of the
exhibit moneys deposited with ASCOM Multi-purpose, Inc. amounting to P5,297.75
to SAJF account; and the net interest amounting to P1,053.57 to JDF
account.
5. The Legal Office, OCA be DIRECTED
to file a criminal case against Ms. MARIA A. CHICO, Clerk of Court II, MCTC Apalit-San Simon, Pampanga.[16]
In its Memorandum[17]
dated
The recommendation is well-taken.
Respondent, in her explanation,[18]
admitted that she was remiss in her duties as collecting officer. She owned up,
among other things, to having used some of the collections to pay for her
personal expenses. She also confessed
her failure to duly collect solemnization fees and to properly and immediately
deposit the cash bonds. She also declared her mistake in giving the junior process
server cash allowances without preparing the necessary papers for travel
expenses in the service of summons.
Supreme Court Circulars Nos. 13-92 and
5-93 provide the guidelines for the proper administration of court funds.
SC Circular No. 13-92 commands that all fiduciary collections “shall be
deposited immediately by the Clerk of Court concerned, upon receipt thereof,
with an authorized depository bank.” In SC Circular No. 5-93, the Land
Bank was designated as the authorized government depository.
Court personnel tasked with
collections of court funds, such as clerks of courts and cash clerks, should deposit
immediately with authorized government depositories the various funds they have
collected because they are not authorized to keep funds in their custody. Delayed
remittance of cash collections constitutes gross neglect of duty. 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.[19]
Respondent’s
restitution of the shortages will not free her from the consequences of her
wrongdoing[20] and
will not erase her administrative culpability. By her reprehensible act of
gross dishonesty, respondent has undermined the public’s faith in courts and,
ultimately, in the administration of justice.[21]
Moreover, the record shows that
respondent did not issue an official receipt for Criminal Case Nos. 9308-9312
amounting to P8,000.00, a clear violation of Sections 61 and 113,[22]
Article VI of the Government Auditing
and Accounting Manual. In addition, respondent failed to detail in her monthly report
of collections and deposits all true and correct cash transactions in violation
of Circular 32-93.[23]
She also falsely reported that certain withdrawals have been duly acknowledged
by their respective claimants by means of signatures which respondent herself
had forged.
It bears emphasis that the
safeguarding of funds and collections, the submission to the Court of a monthly
report of collections for all funds and the proper issuance of official
receipts for collections are essential to an orderly administration of justice.
Hence, respondent’s failure to comply with the pertinent Court Circulars and
other relevant rules designed to promote full accountability for public funds
constitutes gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct.[24]
Dishonesty, gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct are grave offenses
punishable by dismissal.[25]
Hence, for failure to live up to the high ethical standards expected of court
employees, respondent should be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Maria Algabre
Chico, Clerk of Court II, MCTC, Apalit-San Simon,
Pampanga, guilty of gross dishonesty and malversation
of public funds and imposes on her the penalty of DISMISSAL from the
service. Except for leave credits already earned, her retirement benefits are forfeited, with prejudice
to reemployment in any government agency, including government-owned and
controlled corporations. The Civil Service Commission is ordered to cancel her
civil service eligibility, if any, in accordance with Section 9, Rule XIV of
the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292.[26]
The
Court DIRECTS the Office of the Court Administrator to file criminal
charges against respondent Maria Algabre Chico before
the appropriate court.
Further,
the Court DIRECTS Judge Teodora R. Gonzales,
Presiding Judge, MCTC, Apalit-San Simon, Pampanga to:
1. Explain why respondent
was not relieved of her duties and responsibilities upon the discovery of the
irregularities and after the succeeding examinations of respondent’s
collections;
2. Designate a competent and
honest personnel of the court to replace respondent as collecting officer;
3. Cause the transfer and
deposit of the exhibit moneys deposited with ASCOM Multi-Purpose, Inc.
amounting to P5,297.75 to the SAJF
account, and of the net interest amounting to P1,053.67 to the JDF account.
SO ORDERED.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISU
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ANTONIO T. CARPIO MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
RENATO C. CORONA CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MINITA CHICO-NAZARIO
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO T. NACHURA RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice Associate Justice
TERESITA L. DE CASTRO ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of
the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[9]
[19]Re: Report
on the Financial Audit Conducted in the MTCC-OCC,
[20]Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted
at the Municipal Trial Courts of Bani, Alaminos and Lingayen, in Pangasinan, 462 Phil. 535-543 (2003), 417 SCRA 107,
111.
[22]ARTICLE
VI - Accountable Forms
`Sec. 61. Kinds of
Accountable forms -
(a) Official Receipts - For proper
accounting and control of collections, collecting officers shall promptly issue
official receipts for all monies received by them. These receipts may be in the
form of stamps or officially numbered receipts x x x.
Sec. 113. Issuance of
official receipt -For proper accounting and control of revenues, no payment of
any nature shall be received by a collecting officer without immediately
issuing an official receipt in acknowledgment thereof. This receipt may be in
the form of stamps x x x or
officially numbered receipts, subject to proper custody and accountability.
[23]1.Submission
of monthly report of collections for all funds should be sent to this Court not
later than the 10th day of each succeeding month and should include the
following:
a) Original copy of the Report of the Clerk of
Court’s Account indicating the current debit and credit (Judicial Form No. 20);
duplicate official receipts issued; and the corresponding remittance advice
slips duly validated by the Bank where collection was deposited (amount of
collections per report should equal amount per remittance)
b) Duplicate copy of Sheriff’s report of
Collections and Account (Judicial Form No. 38-A); validated duplicate copy of
official receipts and the corresponding remittance advice slips (amount of
collections per report should equal amount per remittance).
(For General Fund for
Ex-Officio Sheriff of RTC and SDC)
c) Original copy of report for deposits and
withdrawals and validated duplicate copy of official receipts and deposit slips;
and in cases of withdrawals, a copy of the order of the Court duly
authenticated with the Court’s seal and copy of acknowledgement receipt. (For Fiduciary Fund of RTC and SDC).
d) Original copy of report for deposits and
withdrawals; duplicates official receipts issued and in cases of withdrawals,
copy of Sheriff cash payment receipts.
(For Sheriff Trust Fund of RTC and SDC)
e) Original copy of Report of Collections and
Deposits; duplicate official receipts issued and a copy of the validated deposit
slip or the postal money order stub if remittance is by PMO.
(For Judiciary
Development Fund of RTC, SDC, Metro TC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC and SCC
[24]Office of
the Court Administrator v. Dureza-Aldevera, A.M. No. P-01-1499,
[25]Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases
in the Civil Service (Resolution No. 9-1936, which took effect on September 27,
1999) provides:
Section 52. 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
2.
Gross Neglect of Duty – 1st Offense – Dismissal
3.
Grave Misconduct – 1st Offense – Dismissal
[26]Section
9, Rule XIV of the Civil Service Rules provides that “(t)he penalty of
dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave
credits and retirement benefits, and the disqualification for re-employment in
the government service. Further, it may be imposed without prejudice to
criminal or civil liability.”