EN BANC
|
OFFICE OF
THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, - versus - MARLON
ROQUE, CLERK OF COURT, BRANCH 3, MTCC, Respondents. |
A.M No. P-06-2200[Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2-51-MTCC] Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO,* AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO
MORALES, AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA,
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BRION,**
& PERALTA,** JJ. Promulgated: February
4, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
By
Resolution of June 26, 2006, this
Court, in A.M. No. P-05-2140,[1]
dismissed Cashier I Aurelia C. Lugue (Aurelia) of the Angeles City Municipal
Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) for dishonesty.
In the same
Resolution, the Court directed herein respondents
. . . Clerk of Court Marlon Roque,
MTCC, Branch 3, as former OIC, MTCC; and Clerk of Court Anita G. Nunag,
OCC, MTCC, Angeles City to explain in writing, within 10 days from receipt of
herein resolution, why they
should not be disciplinary dealt with for failure to:
1.
exercise close supervision over the financial transactions of the court;
2. monitor the activities of Cashier I,
Aurelia C. Lugue, relative to the proper handling of collections of legal fees;
and
3. monitor the proper remittance of
collections on time which resulted to many instances of delayed remittances[2] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied),
and ordered
“this administrative matter against Clerks of Court Roque and Nunag be given a
separate docket number and re-raffled.”[3]
Hence, the present case against
Marlon Roque (Roque) and Anita Nunag (Nunag).
Roque submitted his Compliance[4]
dated July 17, 2006 while Nunag submitted her Explanation[5]
dated July 18, 2006.
Roque, who acted as Officer-in-Charge
(OIC) of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Angeles City MTCC from
December 26, 2002 up to August 15, 2003, proffers the following
explanation:
When he
assumed as OIC, he merely followed the procedures observed by his predecessor
Jesus Miranda who retired on December 25, 2002, without prejudice to the implementation
of necessary changes or
modifications. To the best of his knowledge and despite his limited background
in accounting, he did his “very best” to closely supervise the financial
transactions of the office. In the
discharge of this duty, he never noted any discrepancy reflected in the Monthly
Reports of Collections. And since the Auditors
of the Commission on Audit (COA) did not find any shortages incurred by Aurelia,
he had no reason to suspect that she was not remitting cash collections for the
Fiduciary Fund.
Nunag, for her part, explained as
follows:
When she
assumed as Clerk of Court, she was not thoroughly familiar with accounting
procedures and had no exposure to bookkeeping and accounting work. She
continued the accounting procedures and the practice of Roque and Aurelia, confident
that there was nothing irregular therewith, given that the COA audit conducted
in April 2003 and on January 14, 2004 showed no adverse findings. She daily checked and physically counted the
collections received by Aurelia, and at the end of each month, she counterchecked
the entries in the Monthly Reports of Collections, bankbooks and books of
accounts to determine if they tallied.
In its April 29, 2008 Memorandum,[6]
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found respondents guilty of Simple Negligence
in light of the following evaluation:
Respondents
stand charged for negligence in their duty to monitor and supervise
Cashier Aurelia Lugue in the management of court funds. Their failure to
monitor the financial transactions of the Court had resulted in the shortage in
the Fiduciary Fund (FF) account in the amount of P605,025.00.
.
. . They failed to detect that Cashier Lugue was misappropriating her collections
in the FF account through the “lapping technique”. They failed to discover the
modus operandi of Ms. Lugue because they have very limited knowledge in
accounting and have no experience in detailed audit. Further, they both relied
on the findings of the COA Auditors that there were no shortages incurred by
Ms. Lugue.
In
its Audit Report dated
x
x x x
The audit team observed that respondents could have discovered this machinations of Cashier Lugue had they set in place a proper system of
internal control like routinely
examining the details of collections and comparing the same with validated bank
deposits slips; crosschecking the details of official receipts and matching
them with the entries in the cash book; and reviewing bank statements for prior
months to determine if the deposits tally with the collections. Respondents merely relied on the fact
that the amounts deposited were equal to the amounts collected and the entries
in the Monthly Reports which could be easily manipulated.
We
find the respondents remiss in the performance of their duties. As
accountable officers and custodians of the court’s funds, respondents were duty-bound
to use reasonable skill and diligence in the performance of their duties.
It was their responsibility to ensure the correctness and legitimacy of every
financial transaction within their responsibility. The trust they reposed ob
Cashier Lugue cannot be a valid defense. It was their duty to see to it that
their subordinates performed their functions properly.
For
failure to exercise diligence in the performance of their duties as officers of
the court, this Office finds respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty.
x
x x x[7] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In
recommending the imposition of a fine of P5,000 upon each of the
respondents, the OCA explained:
Under
Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations,
(simple) neglect of duty is punishable by suspension of one month and one day
to six months for the first offense. Under Section 19, Rule XIV of the same
Rules, the penalty of fine (instead of suspension) may also be
imposed in the alternative. Considering th[at] this is respondents’
first offense and following the Court’s ruling in several cases involving
neglect of duty, we find the penalty of fine in the amount of P5,000.00 just
and reasonable.[8]
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The evaluation cum recommendation of the OCA is well-taken.
“Lapping” is
. . . a concealment technique where the subtraction of
money from one customer is covered by applying the payment of a different
customer. For example, a cashier may steal a payment from customer A and cover it
by applying a payment from customer B to customer A’s account. Then when
customer C pays, that amount is applied to customer B[’s account] and so on.
Smart crooks would never lap accounts receivable, but amateurs do not realize
that the technique requires constant
monitoring to avoid detection. Most lapping schemes don’t last long
because of the continuous manual intervention required.[9]
It appears that respondents’ supervision as well as monitoring
of the financial transactions of the court was merely perfunctory, relying in
the main on the Monthly Reports and the fact that the amounts deposited matched
the amount of collections.
Respondents’ lack or limited knowledge of accounting
procedures does not exonerate them. To
credit such defense would set similarly situated employees to lightly discharge
their duty of employing reasonable skill and diligence and thus evade
administrative liability.
That clerks of courts perform a delicate function as
designated custodians of the court’s funds, revenues, records, properties and
premises can never be overemphasized. They wear many hats – those of treasurer,
accountant, guard and physical plant manager of the court, hence, are “entrusted
with the primary responsibility of correctly and effectively implementing
regulations regarding fiduciary funds.”[10]
They are thus liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or
impairment of such funds and property.[11]
WHEREFORE, the Court
finds respondents Marlon Roque and Anita G. Nunag guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty
and are each FINED the amount of Five Thousand (P5,000) Pesos.
Respondent Nunag is admonished to closely monitor, and study and implement procedures to strengthen internal control over the financial transactions of the MTCC, Angeles City.
Both respondents are warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice (ON OFFICIAL LEAVE) ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES- Associate Justice MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO- DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
(ON LEAVE) ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
(ON LEAVE)
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
* On Official Leave.
** On Leave.
[1] Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted in the MTCC-OCC, Angeles City, AM No. P-06-2140, June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 469.
[2] Id. at 484.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Rollo, pp. 78-83.
[5] Id. at 24-31.
[6] Id. at 110-114.
[7] Id. at 113-114.
[8] Id. at 114.
[9] Joseph T.
Wells, CPA, CFE. Skimming: The
Achilles Heel of the Audit. Association
of Certified Fraud Examiners, based in the USA. <http.//www.nysscpa.org/printversions/cpaj/2007/607/p60.htm.>
(visited on January 8, 2009).
[10] Re: Misappropriation of the Judiciary Fund Collections, 465 Phil. 24, 37 (2004).
[11] Re: Misappropriation of the Judiciary Fund Collections, 465 Phil. 24, 34 (2004).