Republic
of the Philippines
Supreme
Court
Manila
EN BANC
|
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, - versus - MARINA GARCIA PACHECO, Clerk of Court, Municipal Circuit
Trial Court, Paete, Laguna, Respondent. |
|
A.M. No. P-02-1625 (Formerly A.M. No. 02-6-144-MCTC) Present: CARPIO, J. CARPIO MORALES, VELASCO, JR.,* NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ,* and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: August
4, 2010 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
PER CURIAM:
This
administrative case stems from an audit conducted by the Financial Audit Team,
Office of the Court Administrator (FAT-OCA) in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
(MCTC) of Paete-Pakil-Pangil, Laguna on April 4, 2002 during the incumbency of
respondent Marina Garcia Pacheco, Clerk of Court II therein.
The audit was prompted by a letter[1]
from Christopher M. Aguilar, Utility Worker I of the court, alleging, among
others, that Pacheco tampered with the duplicate and triplicate copies of court
receipts; and that she failed to issue receipts for collected fines and
forfeited bonds.
|
ORIGINAL COPY |
TRIPLICATE
COPY |
||||
|
Date |
Payor |
Amount |
O.R. No. |
Payor |
Amount |
|
9-28-2000 |
Potenciano de Guia, et al |
|
10514485 |
Imelda Reynoso |
|
|
9-28-2000 |
Imelda Reynoso |
|
10514483 |
Potenciano de Guia |
|
|
12-1-2000 |
Jeffrey Gagaring |
|
10514597 |
Edwin Batislog |
|
|
9-14-2000 |
Rolando Martinez, Romil Lizano, Antonio Dimaranan & Judy Araneta |
|
10514431 |
Violeta Mendoza |
|
|
11-28-2000 |
|
|
10514591 |
No name (DUPLICATE) |
|
|
11-6-2000 |
Alberto Cawasa |
|
10514543 |
Azucena Nine |
|
The initial report[2] of
the FAT-OCA confirmed the veracity of Mr. Aguilar’s allegations. The data under
the payor and amount categories in the original copy of several receipts were not
truthfully reflected in the triplicate copy, viz:
Respondent also failed to issue
receipts for the following collected fines and forfeited bonds:
|
CRIMINAL CASE # |
CASE TITLE |
DATE OF SENTENCE |
AMOUNT OF FINE/BOND FORFEITED |
|
3376 |
People vs. Viola C. Ferol |
October 25, 2001 |
|
|
4692 |
People vs. Pedro Rarela, Letty Patana, Abe Galay |
Feb. 08, 2002 |
|
The report further revealed that
Pacheco deposited court collections with the Rural Bank of Paete, Inc. instead
of the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). It was also discovered that there
was a discrepancy between the amount of bank deposits (P611,816.01) and
withdrawals made (P581,816.01).
Adopting the OCA’s recommendations in
its Memorandum[3] dated
June 7, 2002, the Court resolved to place respondent Pacheco on preventive
suspension, and direct her to comment on the FAT-OCA report.[4]
In her Comment/Compliance[5]
dated September 30, 2002, Pacheco explained that she deposited court
collections with the Rural Bank of Paete because it is the bank nearest to the
MCTC, and she was informed that LBP is the authorized depository bank of courts
only on January 2002. She declared that she was able to transfer the court
funds to LBP only on May 25, 2002 due to heavy workload.
Respondent
blamed the bank for the inconsistency between the total amount of deposits and
total amount of withdrawals. Respondent admitted that she tampered with the
duplicate and triplicate copies of the receipts she issued. However, she
alleged that the money derived from the tampered receipts was spent for the
court’s renovation. She stressed that she did not use court funds for her
personal gain, and that she even used her personal money to pay for the
renovation.
Lastly,
respondent maintained that she issued receipts for forfeited cash bonds and
fines. In support thereof, she appended photocopies of the said receipts.[6]
In
a Resolution[7] dated
November 18, 2002, the Court referred the administrative matter to the OCA for
evaluation, report and recommendation.
Due
to the insufficiency of necessary documents to establish Pacheco’s exact
financial accountabilities, the Fiscal Management Division, Court Management
Office, OCA (FMD-CMO-OCA) conducted a re-examination of the cash and the accounts
of MCTC, Paete, Laguna on April 21-25, 2008.
On June 12, 2008, the FMD-CMO-OCA
submitted its report[8]
disclosing that during her term, respondent Pacheco incurred cash shortages
amounting to P169, 878.58, computed and detailed in this manner:
“Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)
Total Collections for the period from April 1985
to August 31, 2002 396,495.65
Less: Total Remittances for the same period 378,226.65
Balance of Accountability/Under-remittance 18,269.00
Clerk of Court General Fund (COGF)
Total Collections for the period from
October 1995 to August 31, 2002 70,241.14
Less: Total Remittances for the same period 70,161.14
Balance of Accountability/Under-remittance 80.00
Due to the unavailability of Ms. Pacheco’s financial documents for the period April 1985 to December 2000, her accountability for the Judiciary Development Fund and Clerk of Court General Fund for the same period was arrived at based the entries/postings in the Subsidiary Ledger (SL) of the Revenue Section, Accounting Division, Office of the Court Administrator.
Of the total of P18,269.00
financial accountability in the JDF, P10,780.00 came from the tampered
Official Receipts. Except for the “date[,]” all other entries in the original
receipt issued by Ms. Pacheco were not truthfully reflected in the duplicate
and the triplicate copies in violation of OCA Circular No. 22-94 which provides
that the DUPLICATE and TRIPLICATE copies of the receipt will be carbon
reproductions in all respects of whatever may have been written in the
ORIGINAL. Ms. Pacheco resorted to this practice to conceal whatever collections
she had misappropriated.
Fiduciary Fund (FF)
Total Collections for the period from
April 1994 to August 31, 2002 P1,205,985.62
Less: Total
Withdrawals for the same period
934,395.62
Balance of Unwithdrawn FF as of 8/31/02 271,590.00
Deduct: Adjusted bank balance as of 8/31/02:
Bank Balance as of 8/31/02 89,126.74
Less: Unwithdrawn Interests as of 8/31/02 24,066.32 65,060.42
Balance of Accountability/Cash Shortage 206,529.58
Deduct: Deposits made by Ms. Pacheco on
May 30, 2003 55,000.00
Final Accountability/Cash Shortage 151,529.58
As of August 31, 2002, a cash
shortage of P206,529.58 was
uncovered in Ms. Pacheco’s FF account. However, this was reduced to P151,529.58 when Ms. Pacheco
deposited P55,000.00 to the
court’s FF account in the Land Bank of the
In the interviews of the MCTC
employees, it was found that contrary to Pacheco’s claim, the expenses for
court renovations were sourced from local funds and not from court collections.
Sixteen (16) official receipts allocated for the Fiduciary Fund turned out to
be missing and unaccounted for. Finally, the report affirmed that Pacheco
indeed issued receipts for fines and forfeited bonds, and the amounts thereof
were deposited to the proper accounts.
On
October 20, 2008, based on a Memorandum[9] submitted by the OCA, the Court issued a
Resolution[10]
directing respondent Pacheco to restitute the cash shortages she incurred
during her term by depositing the following amounts in their respective
accounts:
Amount Funds/Account
P18, 269.00 Judiciary
Development Fund
80.00 Clerk of Court General Fund
151,529.58 Fiduciary Fund
P169, 878.58 TOTAL
Respondent was likewise ordered to
account for the missing official receipts with serial numbers 7989468, 7989478,
7989479, 7989482, 7989491, 7989492, 7989497, 10514053, 10514055, 10514056,
10514060, 10514062, 10514063, 10514064, 10514067 and 10514070.
The
OCA was directed to file the appropriate criminal charges against Ms. Pacheco. To
prevent her from leaving the country without settling the shortages, a Hold
Departure Order was issued by the Court.[11]
On
November 28, 2008, Pacheco filed a Motion
for Reconsideration as to the Computation of Shortages/Missing Official
Receipts[12]
claiming that her final accountability should only be P95,529.28. She
averred that the FMD-CMO-OCA’s computation failed to deduct the withdrawals
made by Acting Clerk of Court Carmen
Regalado on September 24, 2002, March 18,
2003, February 18, 2003, October 4,
2003 and January 7, 2003 amounting to P57,000.00. She also asked for a
period of six (6) months within which to restitute her cash shortages and to
locate the missing receipts.[13]
The
motion was referred to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation. In
its report[14] dated March
20, 2009, the FMD-CMO-OCA maintained its original finding on the amount of
respondent’s cash shortages.
In a Memorandum[15]
for Associate Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing dated May 11, 2009, then Court
Administrator Jose P. Perez[16]
recommended the denial of respondent’s motion for recomputation, as well as her
plea for additional time.
In the same memorandum, Court Administrator Perez found respondent guilty of gross neglect of duty for her failure to ensure that all documents were properly filed, and all funds entrusted to her were well accounted for. Thus, the OCA recommended respondent’s dismissal from service.
On
June 10, 2009, the Court issued a Resolution[17]
denying respondent’s motion for recomputation and plea for additional time. The
parties were asked to manifest if they were willing to submit the matter for
resolution based on pleadings and documents on record. On June 17, 2009,
respondent submitted her Manifestation[18]
expressing her willingness to submit the matter for resolution based on
pleadings filed.
The
Court agrees with the OCA that respondent should be dismissed from the service.
No position demands greater moral righteousness and
uprightness from its holder than a judicial office.[19] Those connected with the dispensation of
justice, from the highest official to the lowliest clerk, carry
a heavy burden of responsibility.[20] As front liners in the administration of
justice, they should live up to the strictest standards of honesty and
integrity.[21] The
Court has been tireless in reminding employees involved in the administration
of justice to faithfully adhere to their mandated duties and responsibilities.
Whether committed by the highest judicial official or by the lowest member of
the workforce, any act of impropriety can seriously erode the people’s
confidence in the Judiciary. As such, failure to live up to their avowed duty
constitutes a transgression of the trust reposed on them as court officers and
inevitably leads to the exercise of disciplinary authority.[22]
By
these standards, respondent was found wanting, and her admission to tampering
the duplicate and triplicate copies of the court’s official receipts shows her blatant disregard for her responsibilities as
an officer of the court.
She violated OCA Circular No. 22-94,
which provides that the DUPLICATE and TRIPLICATE copies of court receipt must
be carbon reproductions in all respects of whatever may have been written in
the ORIGINAL.
Respondent’s unsubstantiated explanation that she spent the
money derived from the tampered receipts for renovations in the court, is
unconvincing. The investigation and examination conducted by the OCA revealed
the contrary, viz:
“Interview
however with MCTC Paete employees proved that expenses for the court’s
renovation came from local funds and not from court collections.
If her allegations were indeed true,
she should have submitted the corresponding disbursement vouchers for labor and
purchase receipts of materials utilized
in the court’s renovation instead of the supposedly corrected receipts. As
aptly stated by the OCA, her justification was a lame and desperate attempt to
disguise the fact of malversation of the court‘s collections. In so doing, she was
able to siphon off P10,780.00 from the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) of the MCTC in the
year 2000.[24] This amount forms part of the P18,269.00
under-remittances discovered in the MCTC’s JDF during respondent clerk of
court’s tenure.[25]
Respondent also incurred cash
shortages in the Clerk of Court General Fund (COGF) amounting to P80.00
for the period October 1995 to August 31, 2002, and P206,529.58 in the Fiduciary
Fund from April 1994 to August 31, 2002. Her failure to remit these amounts upon
demand by the auditing team and by this
Court, in our Resolution dated October 20, 2008,[26]
constitutes
prima
facie evidence that she had, indeed, put such missing funds
to personal use.[27]
Corroboratively, nine months after having been placed on preventive suspension,
respondent deposited P55,000.00 in the MCTC’s fiduciary fund.
The fact that respondent is willing
to pay her shortages does not free her from the consequences of her wrongdoing.
As Clerk of Court, respondent is
entrusted with delicate functions in the collection of legal fees.[28] She acts as cashier and disbursement officer
of the court; and is tasked to collect and receive all monies
paid as legal fees, deposits, fines and dues, and controls the disbursement of
the same.[29]
She is designated as custodian of the court’s funds and revenues, records, properties and premises,
and shall be liable for any loss or shortage thereof.[30] Hence, even when there is restitution of funds, unwarranted failure to fulfill
these responsibilities deserves administrative sanction, and not even the full
payment of the collection shortages will exempt the accountable officer from
liability.[31]
Her failure
to account for the shortage in the funds she was handling, to turn over money
deposited with her, and to explain and present evidence
thereon constitute gross neglect of duty, dishonesty and grave misconduct.[32] These grave offenses are punishable by
dismissal under Rule IV, Section 52 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service. Her acts may, moreover, subject her to criminal
liability.
As custodian of court
funds and revenues, it was also her duty to immediately deposit the funds
received by her with the authorized government depositories and not to keep the
same in her custody.[33] Supreme Court Circular Nos.
13-92 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, upon receipt thereof, with an authorized
depository bank. Per SC Circular No.
5-93, LBP is designated as the authorized government depository.[34]
The records show, however, that
respondent deposited the court’s collections from 1998 to 2002 with the Rural
Bank of Paete instead of the LBP. Respondent cannot claim
that she was informed of the foregoing rules on deposit only in 2002. SC
Circular Nos. 5-93 and 13-92 were issued on April 30, 1993 and July 9, 1993,
respectively. When she assumed her post as Clerk of Court II of the MCTC in
1998, it was her duty to know the rules and regulations relative to her
official tasks.
Her explanation that
the transfer of the court’s collections to the LBP only on May 5, 2002 was due
to heavy workload, is unsatisfactory. As the chief administrative officer of
the MCTC, respondent clerk of court is expected to develop a system to
efficiently attend to all her tasks. It is the duty of clerks of court to
perform their responsibilities faithfully, so that they can fully comply with
circulars on deposits of collections.[35]
Respondent’s continuous violation of the aforesaid circulars only shows that
she was grossly negligent in the performance of her duties. This negligence is further
compounded by her failure to locate and present the 16 missing official
receipts allocated for the Fiduciary Fund. Clearly, she has been remiss in her
duties as a custodian of court records.
Verily, respondent’s grave misdemeanors
justify her severance from the service,[36]
with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits,
pursuant to current jurisprudence.[37]
We
also agree with the OCA that the monetary value of Pacheco’s accrued leave benefits
can be applied to cover her cash shortages. Based on the records of the OCA’s Leave
Division, respondent has a total of 353.584 days leave credits. Its monetary
value, in the amount of Three Hundred Ten Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Pesos and
fifty seven centavos (P310, 550.57), can be used to restitute the
shortages she incurred.
WHEREFORE, in view
of the foregoing, respondent Marina Garcia Pacheco, Clerk of Court II of the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court of Paete-Pakil-Pangil, Laguna is hereby found GUILTY
of DISHONESTY, GRAVE MISCONDUCT and GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY. She is
DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits,
except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in the
Government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including
government-owned or controlled corporations.
The
Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED
to process the cash value of the accrued leave benefits of respondent,
dispensing with the documentary requirements, and to remit the amount of One
Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy – Eight Pesos and fifty eight
centavos (P169,878.58) to the Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court of
Paete-Pakil-Pangil, Laguna to be apportioned as follows:
Judiciary Development Fund P 18,269.00
Clerk of Court General Fund 80.00
Fiduciary Fund
151,529.58
As to the
remainder of respondent’s accrued leave benefits, the release of the same must
be subjected to the submission of the usual documentary requirements.
The Office of the Court Administrator
is ORDERED to coordinate with the prosecution arm of the government to
ensure the expeditious prosecution of respondent Pacheco for her criminal
liability.
SO
ORDERED.
Chief Justice
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
(no part) 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 |
ROBERTO A.
ABAD Associate Justice |
|
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
(no part) JOSE Associate Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
* No part.
[1] Rollo, p. 156.
[2] Addressed to then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., id. at 2-7.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Respondent’s “MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME IN COMPLIANCE TO THE RESOLUTION DATED
OCTOBER 20, 2008,” id at 64-65.
[14]
[15]
[16] Now Associate Justice of this Court.
[17] Rollo, pp. 91-92.
[18]
[19] Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Sta. Cruz, Davao Del Sur, A.M. No. 05-2-41-MTC, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 143; OCA v. Yan, 496 Phil. 843 (2005); citing Re: Memorandum dated September 27, 1999 of Ma. Corazon M. Molo, 459 Phil. 973 (2003).
[20] Report on the Financial Audit Conducted at
the MCTC-Mabalacat, Pampanga,
A.M. No. P-05-1989,
[21] Chua v. Paas, A.M. No. P-05-1933, September 9, 2005, 469 SCRA 471.
[22] Office of the Court Administrator v. Ofilas,
et al., A.M. No. P-05-1935, April 23, 2010.
[23] Supra note 8, at 31, 38.
[24] Supra note 15, at 85.
[25] Rollo, pp. 29-41.
[26]
[27] Concerned Citizen v. Gabral, Jr.,
A.M. No. P-05-2098, December 15, 2005, 478 SCRA 13.
[28] Office of the Court Administrator v.
[29] Office
of the Court Administrator v.
[30] Office of the Court
Administrator v. Dureza-Aldevera, id.
at 46; Office of the Court Administrator v.
[31] Office of the Court Administrator v. Ofilas,
et al., supra note 22.
[32] Re: Report on the Financial
Audit Conducted in the MTCC-OCC,
[33] Commission on Audit v. Pamposa, AM No. P-07-2291, June 25, 2007, 525 SCRA 471, 475; Office of the Court Administrator v. Dureza-Aldevera, supra note 29, at 46; Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted in the MTCC-OCC, Angeles City, supra note 32, at 481; Re:Initial Report on the Financial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court of Pulilan, Bulacan, supra note 29, at 492.
[34] See Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted in the MTCC-OCC,
[35] Office of the Court Administrator v. Bernardino et al., 490 Phil. 500 (2005), Re: Withholding of Other Emoluments of the Following Clerks of Court: Elsie C. Remoroza, et al., 456 Phil. 906 (2003).
[36] Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (Resolution No. 99-1936, which took effect on September 27, 1999), Sec. 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
[37] Office of the Court Administrator v. Librada Puno, A.M. No. P-03-1748, September 22, 2008, citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Nacuray, A.M. No. 03-1739, April 7, 2006, 486 SCRA 532, 543; Office of the Court Administrator v. Bernardino, supra note 35, see also: Rangel-Roque v. Rivota, 362 Phil. 136 (1999), citing Re: Report on the Judicial and Financial Audit of RTC-Br. 4, Panabo, Davao del Norte, 351 Phil. 1 (1998), Re: Financial Audit in RTC, General Santos City, 338 Phil. 13 (1997); Office of the Court Administrator v. Sumilang, 338 Phil. 28 (1977); JDF Anomaly in the RTC of Ligao, Albay, 325 Phil. 506 (1996); and Ferrriols v. Hiam, A.M. No. P-90-414, August 9, 1993, 225 SCRA 205.