|
JONATHAN* A. REBONG, Complainant, |
A.M. No. P-07-2338
(Formerly
OCA IPI No. 06-2440-P) |
|
- versus - ELIZABETH R. TENGCO, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court, Sta.
Cruz, Laguna, Respondent. |
Present: PUNO,
C.J., CARPIO,
CORONA,
CARPIO
MORALES, VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL
CASTILLO, ABAD,** VILLARAMA,
JR., PEREZ,
and MENDOZA,
JJ. Promulgated: April 7, 2010 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
PER
CURIAM:
On
P400,000.00 for the three (3) cases, which had been docketed as
Criminal Case Nos. 32782-84. Since
respondent was the clerk of court, complainant believed and trusted her and
paid her the P400,000.00 in cash. Complainant was then issued
photocopies of the following receipts supposedly representing the amount he
paid, to wit:
|
Official Receipt No. |
Date |
Amount |
Fee Collected |
|
0862613[2] |
|
|
Filing fee in CC# 32782 and Misc. fee (SAJ[3]) |
|
0862614[4] |
|
39,000.00 6,800.00 |
Filing fee in CC# 32783 Misc. fee (SAJ) |
|
0862615[5] |
|
5,700.00 3,400.00 |
Filing fee in CC# 32784 Misc. fee (SAJ) |
|
17897618[6] |
|
75,000.00 25,000.00 |
Service fees in CC# 32782-32784 Legal fees |
|
0862691[7] |
|
104,270.00 |
Filing fee in CC# 32783 (JDF[8]) |
|
0862692[9] |
|
69,649.00 |
Filing fee in CC# 32782 (JDF) |
|
0862693[10] |
|
50,556.00 |
Filing fee in CC# 32784 (JDF) |
Complainant asked respondent why he was only being issued photocopies, but respondent replied that she needs to record them in the books and she will just send complainant the originals.
Several weeks passed but complainant did not receive the promised original copies of the receipts. So he went to respondent who told him that she lost the originals.
Sensing an anomaly, complainant went to the Regional Trial
Court and other Municipal Trial Courts a few months later to ask for a
computation of the filing fee for a case like his, where the claim was worth P5.5
million. It was only then that he found out that the filing fees he paid were
very excessive.
Furious, complainant demanded from respondent copies of the
original receipts. Respondent agreed to
meet with him, but when they met, the former only presented a sheet of yellow
paper[11]
with a handwritten list of itemized expenses where his P400,000.00
allegedly went.
Thus, complainant, through counsel, sent demand letters to
respondent at her place of work. They however
later learned that respondent had stopped reporting for work at the MTC of Sta.
Cruz, Laguna, since February 2006. They
sent the demand letters to respondent’s residence at
Having failed to secure the receipts from respondent, complainant’s counsel wrote the Officer-in-Charge of the MTC, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, requesting for certified photocopies of all the receipts evidencing payment of the legal fees for Criminal Case Nos. 32782-84.
On
This is to certify that the Court cannot provide the
certified xerox copies of all the receipts evidencing payment corresponding
[to] legal fees in Criminal Cases Nos. 32782, 32783 and 32784 for Violation of
BP 22 considering that they [are] all in [the] possession of the Clerk of Court
Ms. Elizabeth R. Tengco. What is on record, in Criminal Case No. 32782 are O.R.
No. 0862692 (JDF) and O.R. No. 0862613 (SAJ) written on the front page; in
Criminal Case No. 32783 are O.R. No. 0862691 (JDF) and O.R. No. 0862614 (SAJ)
also written on the front page; and in Criminal Case No. 32784 are O.R. No. 0862693
(JDF) and O.R. No. 0862615 (SAJ) likewise written on the front page.
The Court has already issued a Memorandum to Ms.
Tengco directing her to submit all the records of cases in her possession but
up to now there is no response yet, including her explanation to the alleged
wrong assessment of filing fees in the above criminal cases. x x x.
Today[,] in connection with this request, a Memorandum
to her to surrender all the duplicate copies of all the receipts, mentioned in
the said request was issued to Ms. Tengco, x x x.[12]
On
Upon evaluation of the
complaint, the OCA opined that in order to afford respondent her right to due
process and considering the gravity of the accusation leveled against her, it
was best to have the issues ventilated in a full-blown investigation. The OCA
accordingly recommended that the instant complaint be re-docketed as a regular
administrative matter and the same be referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional
Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna for investigation, report and recommendation.[15]
Said recommendation was adopted by the Court in a Resolution[16]
dated
Executive Judge Jaime C. Blancaflor conducted the hearings on the complaint. Respondent was duly notified[17] but failed to show up in all of the hearings. Thus, after complainant concluded the presentation of his evidence, the case was deemed submitted for resolution.
In his Report and Recommendation[18]
dated
Careful assessment of the
evidence presented by the complainant shows that respondent indeed, committed
grave misconduct which is grossly prejudicial to the administration of justice.
She did not only use her position so as to exact tremendous amount from a
complainant, a victim of infraction, but also misappropriated money intended
for the government.
It is
provided in the Manual for Clerks of Courts that all fees collected shall
accrue to the general fund. The Clerk of Court deposit[s] everyday his
collections to the nearest LBP Branch for the account of the Judiciary Fund,
Supreme Court,
x x x
x
She
also violated Sec. 3 of the Code of Conduct of Court Personnel prohibiting
court personnel to alter, falsify, destroy or mutilate any record within her
control. As clearly testified by the Officer-in-Charge, Leslie A. San Juan, the
purported copies of Official Receipts issued by the respondent to the complainant
do not actually exist. With this alone, respondent should be meted the severe
administrative penalty of dismissal from service in accordance with the Civil
Service Law.
x x x
x
By
presenting a list of computation of the alleged expenses or fees paid by the
complainant, respondent was so dishonest and the same constitute also a Grave
Misconduct warranting her dismissal from service.[19]
By Resolution[20]
dated
The OCA, in its Memorandum[21]
dated
1) that Elizabeth R. Tengco, Clerk of Court, Municipal
Trial Court, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, be FOUND GUILTY of Gross Dishonesty and
Grave Misconduct;
2) that all retirement benefits accruing to respondent
Tengco be FORFEITED;
3) that the Financial Management
Office, Office of the Court Administrator be DIRECTED to process the
terminal leave benefits of the respondent, dispensing with the documentary
requirements, to REMIT the same to the following court (MTC, Sta. Cruz,
Laguna) funds, in the amount of Fifty Thousand Three Hundred Pesos (P50,300.00)
representing JDF and Twenty Five Thousand and Two Hundred Twenty-Five Pesos (P25,225.00)
representing SAJ, in the total amount of Seventy Five Thousand and Five Hundred
Twenty-Five Pesos (P75,525.00), and to PAY the remainder thereof,
in the amount of One Hundred Three Thousand [Eighty] Pesos and 72/100 (P103,080.72),
to complainant Rebong as partial restitution of respondent Tengco;
4) that respondent Tengco be DIRECTED to RESTITUTE
complainant Rebong the remaining amount of Two Hundred Twenty-One Thousand
Three Hundred Ninety-Four Pesos and 28/100 (P221,394.28);
5) that she be BARRED from future employment to
any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or
controlled corporation; and
6) that Legal Division, OCA, be DIRECTED to
initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against respondent Tengco in light of
the above findings.[23]
After a thorough evaluation of the
records and taking into consideration the recommendations
of the Investigating Judge and the OCA, we find respondent administratively
liable.
First,
contrary to the P400,000.00 assessment made by respondent, the complainant
should have been assessed legal fees only amounting to P75,525.00,[24]
based on SC Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004,[25]
which was issued by the Court to serve as reference for Clerks of Court in the
assessment of the legal fees to avoid any confusion.
Second, respondent violated SC Circular No. 26-97
dated
1)
Compel their collecting officials to
strictly comply with the provisions of the AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING MANUAL, Art.
VI, Sec. 61 and 113, to wit:
“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 xxx.” (Underscoring
supplied.)
“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. [These]
receipts may be in the form of stamps xxx or officially numbered receipts,
subject to proper custody and accountability.” (Underscoring supplied.)
That she allegedly needed to record the payments in the books as she explained to complainant was not a valid justification for her to disregard the above-quoted directive.
Third, respondent likewise violated SC Circular No. 22-94[26] which provides:
To achieve
uniformity and consistency in the observance of audit procedures and for proper
accounting and control of collections, this Office prescribes the following
guidelines:
1. The official receipts issued by the Supreme Court to all lower courts
shall be used only for collections that will accrue to the National Government;
x x x x
7. In cases
of loss of official receipts, the Clerk of Court or the duly authorized
representative must immediately report the incident to the
Provincial/City/Municipal Auditor and then file an application for relief, if
the circumstances warrant(s);
x x x x
9. Official
Receipts must be kept in safe custody. The Clerk of Court, as the person
directly responsible for all court collections, must take all reasonable steps
to minimize the risk of losses, defalcations and other types of irregularities.
Respondent herself admitted to complainant that the reason
why she cannot anymore give the original receipts is that she lost them. Such
loss is substantiated by the result of the Financial Audit[27]
conducted by the OCA during respondent’s period of accountability from April
2000 to
Section 7, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court is explicit that the clerk of court shall safely keep all records, papers, files, exhibits and public property committed to her charge. The clerk of court performs a very delicate function, having control and management of all court records, exhibits, documents, properties and supplies. Being the custodian thereof, the clerk of court is liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of said funds and properties.[28] As the custodian of the official receipts, respondent’s liability for their loss cannot be gainsaid.
More, as custodian of
court funds and revenues, it was likewise respondent’s duty to immediately
deposit the funds received by her to the authorized government depositories.[29]
SC Circular Nos. 13-92[30]
and 5-93 provide the guidelines for the proper administration of court
funds. SC Circular No. 13-92 directs that all fiduciary collections be
deposited immediately by the clerk of court concerned, upon receipt thereof,
with an authorized depository bank. Per SC Administrative Circular No. 5-93,
the Land Bank of the
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 fund in their custody.[31] In the above-mentioned financial audit, it was revealed that the time when complainant paid his filing fees was within the period when respondent failed to submit her monthly reports or proof of remittances for the JDF, SAJ Fund and General Fund.[32] We can only conclude that respondent kept in her custody the filing fees complainant had paid and misappropriated the same.
Respondent’s case is not simply non-abidance with court
circulars and directives. Complainant in good faith trusted respondent’s word
when the latter made an assessment of the fees he must pay. Unfortunately,
respondent abused this trust and confidence reposed on her and used her
position to extract exorbitant amounts from complainant under the guise of
legal fees for her personal gain. A very obvious indication of respondent’s dishonest
motive is the huge difference in the amounts, P324,475.00 to be exact,
which eliminates any possibility that respondent may have only made the wrong
assessment in good faith. Worse, respondent is nowhere to be found and thus the
amounts collected are still unaccounted for.
Under the circumstances, respondent is clearly guilty of gross dishonesty and grave misconduct which the Court cannot countenance. The Court will not tolerate any conduct, act or omission by any court employee violating the norm of public accountability and diminishing or tending to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[33] No less than the Constitution mandates that all public officers and employees should serve with responsibility, integrity and efficiency. Indeed, public office is a public trust. Thus, we have often stated that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, is circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. The Judiciary expects the best from all its employees who must be exemplars in the administration of justice.[34]
Under Rule XIV, Section 22 of the Omnibus Rules
Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and Other Pertinent Civil Service
Laws, dishonesty and grave misconduct both warrant the penalty of dismissal
even if committed for the first time. In
view, however, of this Court’s Resolution[35]
dated P75,525.00 for
Criminal Case Nos. 32782-84 which respondent failed to remit should be deducted
from her accrued leave credits to be processed for monetization by the OCA
Financial Management Office.
Per certification of Atty.
Caridad A. Pabello, Chief of Office, OCA Office of Administrative Services,
respondent has a total of 230.082 leave credits (92.791 vacation leave credits
and 137.291 sick leave credits)[38]
as of February 26, 2006, which according to Atty. Lilian Barribal-Co, Chief of
Office of the OCA Financial Management Office, has a monetary equivalent of P178,605.72.[39]
Deducting from said amount the P75,525.00 for the unremitted filing
fees, respondent has P103,080.72 worth of terminal leave benefits left.
The Court, however, notes that respondent still has pending administrative cases
with the Court. Thus, the Court deems it more prudent to hold the release of
said amount in abeyance until final resolution of all respondent’s cases rather
than having it answer as partial restitution to complainant.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Elizabeth R. Tengco liable for gross dishonesty and grave misconduct, and order the forfeiture of her retirement benefits. She is BARRED from future re-employment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
The
Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator is hereby DIRECTED
to process the terminal leave benefits of respondent, dispensing with the
documentary requirements, and REMIT to the Municipal Trial Court, Sta.
Cruz, Laguna the amounts of P50,300.00 representing collections for the JDF
and P25,225.00 representing collections for the SAJ Fund, or the total
amount of P75,525.00. The release of the remaining P103,080.72 of
the terminal leave benefits of respondent shall be held in abeyance pending the
resolution of Judge Elpidio R. Calis v. Elizabeth R. Tengco[40]
and Office of the Court Administrator v. Elizabeth R. Tengco.[41]
Respondent Tengco is
hereby DIRECTED to PAY complainant Jonathan A. Rebong, the P324,475.00
excess fees she collected from the latter.
The Legal Division of the Office of the Court Administrator is likewise DIRECTED to INITIATE appropriate criminal proceedings against respondent Tengco, with deliberate dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
|
REYNATO S. PUNO Chief Justice |
||
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES 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 |
|
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
|
|
(On official business) ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
|
JOSE Associate Justice |
JOSE CATRAL Associate Justice |
|
* Also referred to as Joey in some parts of the rollo.
** On official business.
[1] Rollo, pp. 16-19.
[2]
[3] Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund.
[4] Rollo, p. 22.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] Judiciary Development Fund.
[9] Rollo, p. 20.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22] Dated
[23] Rollo, pp. 179-180.
[24]
|
Filing Fees (SAJ and JDF) |
|
|
32782 |
|
|
32783 |
42,400.00 |
|
32784 |
9,100.00 |
|
TOTAL |
|
[25] Guidelines
in the Allocation of the Legal Fees Collected Under Rule 141 of the Rules of
Court, as amended, Between the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund and the
Judiciary Development Fund. Dated
[26] Dated
[27] Rollo, p. 128.
[28] Office of the Court Administrator v.
Ramirez, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1508,
[29] Office of the Court Administrator v.
Varela, A.M. No. P-06-2113,
[30] Dated
[31] Ilagan v. Amar, A.M. No. P-04-1858,
[32] Rollo, pp. 129-130.
[33] Sabado, Jr.
v. Jornada, A.M. No. P-07-2344,
[34] Francisco v. Galvez, A.M. No.
P-09-2636,
[35] Rollo, pp. 116-117.
[36] A.M. No. P-07-2360.
[37] A.M. No. P-06-2253.
[38] Certification dated
[39] Memorandum dated
[40] A.M. No. P-07-2360.
[41] A.M. No. P-06-2253.