|
OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, - versus - EVELYN Y. RONCAL, Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-05-2060
(Formerly A.M. No. 05-7-176-MCTC) Present: Puno, C.J.,* Quisumbing,** Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Carpio Morales, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, and
PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: March 13, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PER CURIAM:
This is an administrative case against Evelyn Y. Roncal (Roncal), former
Officer-in-Charge (OIC) and Court Stenographer II of the Municipal Circuit
Trial Court (MCTC), Dinalupihan-Hermosa,
The facts are as follows:
In compliance with Travel
Order No. 72-2004 dated October 5, 2004, an audit team from the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) headed by team leader Dindo V. Sevilla, Management
and Audit Analyst IV, proceeded to the MCTC,
Dinalupihan-Hermosa, Bataan to conduct a comprehensive financial audit on the
books of account of accountable officers of the MCTC, including respondent
Roncal.[1]
In a report[2] dated
1. The cash
inventory conducted by the audit team on P100,825.00 for which Ms. Roncal failed to
present the corresponding official receipts for each of the funds constituting
the amount mentioned.
2. Out of One
Hundred Ten (110) booklets of Official Receipts (O.R.s) [consisting] of fifty
(50) receipts for each booklet issued by the Supreme Court to [the]
MCTC-Dinalupihan, Bataan as of the time [of] audit, five (5) booklets of
Official Receipts or a total of Two Hundred Fifty (250) receipts were missing
and unaccounted for.
3. One of the
Official Receipts included in the abovementioned booklets later turned out in
Criminal Case No. 11518, entitled “People of the P15,000.00). This O.R. was issued during the incumbency of
Ms. Roncal as OIC, but no such bail was reported in the cashbook. There was also no corresponding deposit of
the said collection reflected in the bank account for fiduciary funds of the
court.
4. After a
tedious scrutiny of the records and reconciliation of figures, the audit team
laid bare the following shortages in the collection of fees and/or
under-remittances attributable to Ms. Roncal:
|
Clerk of Court General Fund (CoCGF) − |
|
|
Special
Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) − |
11,465.00 |
|
Judiciary
Development Fund (JDF) |
28,029.60 |
|
Fiduciary
Fund (FF) |
104,000.00 |
|
TOTAL |
147,972.60[3] |
The audit team also uncovered the following
irregularities committed by Roncal:
(a) Failure to issue Official Receipt – In
the course of the audit, the accused in Criminal Case No. 11428 went to the MCTC
demanding the release of his cash bond in the amount of P60,000 from
Roncal, to whom he earlier made the payment.
The accused adverted to an order directing his release after posting his
cash bond and another order directing the release of said bond. He claimed, however, that he was not issued a
receipt when he paid the bond. A
verification of the records of the case disclosed that both orders existed, but
no such cash bond was reported in the cashbook or deposited with the
court. The audit team also noted the
report of incumbent Clerk of Court Jonathan Visitacion that in Criminal Case
No. 11382, no cash bond documents were found in the records of the case despite
the existence of an order of release referring to a bond posted. Based on the records, the bond, if any,
should have been part of the July 2004 collection during the incumbency of Roncal
as OIC.
(b) Using the same Official Receipt number in
another transaction – Upon further probe in Criminal Case No. 11428, the audit
team discovered that the official receipt number referred to in the order (OR#
17475783) was also the same official receipt number appearing on record in Criminal
Case No. 10863. In Criminal Case No.
10863, the cash bond was posted on
(c) Failure to update cashbook
– The audit team observed the practice in the MCTC, Dinalupihan,
(d) Failure to regularly submit Monthly Reports
– As can be gleaned from the records of the court and implicitly admitted by Roncal
in her Explanation[4] dated
In a Resolution[6] dated
(a)
REDOCKET the subject financial audit report as a regular
administrative matter against former Officer-in-Charge and Court Stenographer
II Ms. Evelyn Y. Roncal;
(b) SUSPEND Ms. Evelyn Y. Roncal from office and ISSUE a Hold Departure Order against
her, both effective immediately, to prevent her from leaving the country;
(c)
DIRECT Evelyn Y. Roncal within ten (10) days from notice to:
(1)
PAY and DEPOSIT to their respective fund accounts
the following SHORTAGES in her collections amounting to One Hundred Forty
Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-Two Pesos and Sixty Centavos (P147,972.60)
|
NAME OF FUND |
AMOUNT |
|
G.F. |
|
|
S.A.J. |
11,465.00 |
|
J.D.F. |
28,029.60 |
|
Fiduciary
Fund |
104,000.00 |
|
|
|
|
TOTAL |
147,972.60 |
and SUBMIT to the Fiscal Monitoring Division the machine validated deposit
slip as proof of compliance with the above directives;
(2)
PRODUCE the following Official Receipts:
|
O.R. BOOKLET SERIES NUMBER |
DATE ISSUED BY THE PROPERTY DIVISION |
|
10547251
to 10547300 |
|
|
11044951
to 11045000 |
|
|
15376801
to 15376850 |
|
|
15376851
to 15376900 |
|
|
15376901
to 15376950 |
|
(3)
EXPLAIN in writing, within ten (10) days from notice, why no
disciplinary action shall be taken against her for:
3.1
using
one official receipt for two different transactions thus deceiving the
government and litigants in order to collect money from them and keep it for
her own personal use;
3.2
not
issuing an Official Receipt to the bondsman and keeping it for her own purpose;
3.3
the
shortages found in the Judiciary Development Fund, Special Allowance for
Judiciary, General Fund and Fiduciary Fund; and
(4)
EXPLAIN why no collections were reported in the General Fund
for the period from January to July 2003 and from March to June 2004.[7]
In the same resolution,
the Court also resolved to refer the matter to Executive Judge Ener S.
Fernando, Regional Trial Court, Dinalupihan,
In his Final Report and
Recommendation[9]
dated
Subsequently, in a
Memorandum[10]
dated
IN
VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the
undersigned respectfully recommends that for gross dishonesty, grave misconduct
and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the public, respondent Ms.
Evelyn Y. Roncal, Court Stenographer II, MCTC, Hermosa-Dinalupihan, Bataan, be DISMISSED
from the service with forfeiture of retirement and other benefits except
accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any
government office or instrumentality, including government-owned and
controlled-corporation. It is further
recommended that respondent be ORDERED to restitute the amount of P147,972.60
representing [her] shortages in the following:
General Fund – P4,478.00; SAJ – P11,465.00; JDF – P28,029.60;
and Fiduciary Fund – P104,000.00.
The Employees Leave Division, Office
of the Administrative Services, OCA shall also be DIRECTED to compute
the balance of respondent’s earned leave credits and forward the same to the
Finance Division, Fiscal Management Office, OCA, which shall compute its
monetary value. The amount as well as the
other benefits she may be entitled to shall be applied as restitution of the
shortage.[11]
After review, we adopt the
findings and recommendation of the OCA.
Needless to
over-emphasize, as Officer-in-Charge, Roncal occupied an important and very
sensitive position in our judicial system.
As the person entrusted with the various funds of the
court, her duty was to deposit her collections immediately in authorized
government depositories. She was not
supposed to keep these funds in her possession or leave them elsewhere.
The procedure in the collection of different judiciary
funds, as outlined by the OCA in its Memorandum, is as follows:
a) The Official Receipts to be used in the
collections of the [Special Allowance for the Judiciary] (SAJ), [Judiciary
Development Fund] (JDF), [Fiduciary Fund] (FF), [Sheriff’s
Trust Fund] (STF), and [General Fund] (GF) are requisitioned at
the Property Division, Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court; the [Victim’s
Compensation Fund] (VCF), at the Department of Justice; the Cadastral Fees, at the Land
Registration Authority; and the [Legal Research Fund] (LRF), at the U.P.
Law Center;
b) From the Official Receipts provided by
the Court, separate booklets must be allocated for each fund;
c) For every amount collected, a
corresponding Official Receipt must be issued separately for each fund. The fund to which each collection pertains
must be indicated in the booklet for easy identification;
d) After issuing the corresponding Official
Receipt, the transaction must be recorded in the appropriate cashbook. For this purpose, separate cashbooks for each
fund must be maintained. All unremitted
collections recorded in the cashbook must tally with the cash on hand held at
the end of the day;
e) If the collection for the day reaches
Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00), it must be deposited immediately to the
nearest authorized government deposit[o]ry bank, the Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP). In localities where
there are no LBP [branch offices], they can purchase Postal Money Orders
payable to the Chief Accountant of the Office of the Court Administrator as
proof of their remittance (Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004,
Guidelines In The Allocation of Legal Fees, August 20, 2004).[12]
Repeatedly, this Court has 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. 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] To date, Roncal has not remitted the amount
of P147,972.60 which she was directed to deposit.
The report of the audit team showed that Roncal committed
irregularities such as failure to issue official receipts, using the same
receipt number in two transactions, failure to deposit collections in faithful
compliance with the regulations, failure to update cashbook, failure to
regularly submit monthly reports, and irregular and unauthorized
withdrawals. On top of it all, she
incurred shortages in her collections amounting to P147,972.60.
Roncal was given every opportunity to explain her side
but she chose not to. She was directed
to file her comment but she never complied.
Such conduct could only be indicative of guilt.
We therefore agree with the investigating judge and
the OCA that Roncal is guilty of gross dishonesty, grave misconduct and acts
prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Failure of the Clerk of Court to remit the court funds
collected to the Municipal Treasurer constitutes gross neglect of duty,
dishonesty and grave misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service. Under Rule IV, Section 52-A[14] of the Civil
Service Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, these are
grave offenses punishable by dismissal even if committed for the first time.[15]
WHEREFORE, respondent Evelyn Y. Roncal is
hereby DISMISSED from service with
forfeiture of retirement and other benefits except accrued leave credits, if
any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government office or
instrumentality, including government-owned and controlled corporations. She is hereby ordered to restitute the amount
of P147,972.60 representing her shortages in the following: General Fund – P4,478.00; SAJ – P11,465.00;
JDF – P28,029.60; and Fiduciary Fund – P104,000.00. The Employees Leave Division, Office of
Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator is also directed to compute
the balance of respondent’s earned leave credits and forward the same to the
Finance Division, Fiscal Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator
which shall compute its monetary value.
The amount as well as the other benefits she may be entitled to shall be
applied as restitution for the shortages.
SO ORDERED.
(On official leave)
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice |
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
|
|
* On official leave.
** Acting Chief Justice.
[1] Rollo, p. 7.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Vilar v. Angeles, A.M. No. P-06-2276,
[14] 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
x x x x
[15] Report on the Status of the Financial
Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court,