THIRD DIVISION
|
Failure of Atty. Jacinto
B. Peñaflor, Jr., Clerk of Court VI, Regional Trial Court, San Jose,
Camarines Sur, to Submit the Required Monthly Report of Collections,
Deposits, and Withdrawals. |
A.M.
No. P-07-2339
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: August
20, 2008 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
The instant administrative matter
arose from the failure of Atty. Jacinto Peñaflor, Clerk of Court, Regional
Trial Court (RTC),
The facts of the case, gleaned from
the report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), are as follows:
Two notices directing the submission
of the reports were sent to Atty. Peñaflor by Ms. Hedelina F. Alcaraz, then Supreme
Court (SC) Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Accounting Division, Financial
Management Office (FMO), OCA. The first one was sent on
Sheriff’s Trust Fund – January 1999-February 2001, September 2001. November 2001-March 2002. March-May 2003. July 2003-July 2004
Fiduciary Fund – November 2000. January 2001. February-April 2002. November 2003-July 2004
General Fund – February 2002
Sheriff’s General Fund – November 2001. November 2003
Special Allowance for Justices & Judges – December 2003. March 2004-July 2004
Despite
the directives, Atty. Peñaflor failed to submit the required reports which
prompted the OCA to request the Honorable Court for authority to withhold his
salaries pending his compliance,[3]
pursuant to Section 122 of Presidential Decree 1445. The Court approved the request on
In
a letter dated
On
May 19, 2005, then Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño required Atty.
Peñaflor to show cause within a non-extendible period of five (5) days why no
disciplinary sanctions should be taken against him for gross neglect of duty,
incompetence and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.[6] Atty. Peñaflor failed to submit his
explanation.
On
On
He
recounted that on
On
In
a Memorandum for the Court dated
Prior
thereto, or on September 25, 2007, the OCA received Atty. Peñaflor’s Comment
dated September 7, 2007, which was in compliance with the Court’s July 11, 2007
Resolution. In the said comment,
respondent Atty. Peñaflor denies the allegation in the Memorandum of Atty. Co
that he “failed to submit, despite due notice, the required monthly reports and
to comply with the show cause order which clearly shows his indifference and
willful disregard of the authority of said Office and his willful disobedience
or insubordination needs correction and requires the exercise of the court’s
disciplinary action.”
Respondent
explains that on
Respondent
claims that the withholding of his salaries in September 2004 was “too
drastic,” considering that he had just been audited on March 19, 2004 as regards all his
accountabilities covering the period from the time he assumed office as Clerk
of Court, OCC-RTC, San Jose, Camarines Sur in May 2002 until the audit date.
Respondent said he submitted to the audit team all the financial reports the
team directed him to submit. Granting
that he failed to submit the monthly reports from the audit date of
He
relates that in the same month his salaries were withheld, or particularly on
the morning of
Respondent
claims that he complied with the
He
also claims that he complied with the
Respondent
states that notwithstanding his dilemma, he has dutifully performed his tasks
and obligations as Clerk of Court of the OCC-RTC,
According
to the Office of Administrative Services, OCA, Atty. Peñaflor was appointed
Clerk of Court VI at the OCC-RTC,
From
March 16 to 19, 22 and 25, 2004, an audit team headed by Mr. Eduardo G. Tesea
conducted a financial audit and reconciliation of the books of accounts and
accountabilities of Atty. Rivera and Atty. Peñaflor covering the period
Upon
verification, Mr. Tesea confirmed respondent’s claim in his comment that he
furnished the audit team copies of the delayed monthly reports. He is, however, unsure whether or not copies
of those reports were also sent by the respondent to the Revenue Section.
Notably,
some of the monthly reports required from respondent were for periods when he
was not yet the accountable officer. Ms.
Gilda A. Sumpo, OIC, Revenue Section, Accounting Division, FMO, OCA explained
that the respondent was asked to submit all the overdue monthly financial
reports of the OCC, RTC, San Jose, Camarines Sur, because he was the
accountable officer. Respondent failed
to call the OCA’s attention or explain that some of the monthly reports he was
asked to submit corresponded to the term of Atty. Rivera. Respondent simply ignored the letters sent to
him.
Further
verification with Ms. Sumpo showed that based on the OCA’s records,
respondent’s monthly reports were usually mailed and submitted late. She observed that respondent submitted his
monthly reports by batches. For example,
the monthly reports for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and Fiduciary Fund
for the months of March 2004 to August 2004, were all submitted by respondent
in one batch and all were received by the Revenue Section only in October 2004.
Several months after he had reported
back to work from his stroke, most of respondent’s monthly reports were still
submitted late and by batches. This is
evident from the list he provided in his Comment,[14]
showing the dates he mailed his monthly reports of funds collected.
The
OCA finds the respondent liable for simple neglect of duty and recommends the imposition
of a fine of P5,000.00, this being his first administrative
offense. Under the circumstances, we
find the OCA’s findings and recommendations in order.
Clerks of court are important
functionaries of the judiciary. Their administrative functions are vital to the
prompt and sound administration of justice.[15]
Their office is the hub of adjudicative and administrative orders, processes
and concerns.[16] They
perform a very delicate function as custodian of the court's funds, revenues,
records, property and premises.[17]
They are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of such funds
and property.[18] They
are specifically imbued with the mandate to safeguard the integrity of the
court as well as the efficiency of its proceedings, to preserve respect for and
loyalty to it, to maintain the authenticity or correctness of court records,
and to uphold the confidence of the public in the administration of justice.[19]
Thus, they are required to be persons of competence, honesty and probity.[20]
WHEREFORE, the
Court finds Atty. Jacinto B. Peñaflor, Jr., Clerk of Court VI, RTC, P5,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition
of the same offense will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 12.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15] Escañan v. Monterola II, A.M. No. P-99-1347,
[16] Solidbank Corporation v. Capoon, Jr., A.M.
No. P-98-1266,
[17]
Office of the Court Administrator v. Orbigo-Marcelo, A.M. No. P-00-1415-MeTC,
[18] Office
of the Court Administrator v. Bawalan, A.M. No. P-93-945,
[19] Marasigan
v. Buena, A.M. No. 95-1-01-MTCC,
[20] Cain v. Neri, A.M. No. P-98-1267,