Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
REPORT
ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT
TRIAL COURT, MONDRAGON-SAN ROQUE, |
A.M. No. P-09-2721 (Formerly A.M. No. 09-9-162-MCTC) Present: VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, PERALTA, and mendoza,
JJ. Promulgated: February 16,
2010 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This administrative matter arose from
the financial audit conducted by the Financial Audit Team on the books of
accounts of Pompeyo G. Gimena, Clerk of Court II of Municipal Circuit Trial Court
(MCTC), Mondragon-San Roque, Northern Samar, covering the period from July 1,
1985 to March 31, 2009, to verify whether the amounts collected were correctly
and completely recorded in the books and, thereafter, deposited in the Land Bank
of the Philippines (LBP) within the prescribed period.
In the Memorandum[1]
for the Court Administrator, the audit team made the following observation and
evaluation. Thus,
Based on the available documents presented to the audit team, the following are our significant findings and observations:
l. Cash Count on
Denominations Quantity Amount
P1,000.00 55
P55,000.00
500.00 48 24,000.00
200.00 42 8,400.00
100.00 72 7,200.00
50.00 2 100.00
Total P94,700.00
SUMMARY OF CASH
COUNT ON
Total Undeposited
Collections P94,740.00
Total Cash Items P94,700.00
Balance of
Accountability P
40.00
The cash presented were for the undeposited collections of the following accounts:
|
Name of Fund |
Date |
OR No. |
Amount |
|
JDF [Judiciary Development Fund] |
April14, 2009 |
6936764 to
6800; 6851 to 6950; 6937051 to 7100; 7151 to 7167 |
|
|
SAJF [Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund] |
Aug.20,
2008 to |
6936830 to
6850; 6501 to 6550; 6937001 to 7150; 7201 to 7216 |
|
|
MF [Mediation Fund] |
Mar. 26 to
|
6936953 to
6954 |
1,000.00 |
|
FF [Fiduciary Fund] |
|
2716963 |
25,000.00 |
|
|
|
2716959 |
25,000.00 |
|
|
|
2716964 |
25,000.00 |
|
Total |
|
|
|
Aside
from the shortage of P40.00 during cash count, Mr. Pompeyo G. Gimena did
not deposit on time the collections on Fiduciary Fund, Special Allowance for
the Judiciary Fund, Judiciary Development Fund and Mediation Fund with the
authorized depository bank, the Land Bank of the Philippines, pursuant to the
guidelines set forth in Circular No. 50-95 dated October 11, 1995 and
Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 dated August 20, 2004, respectively.
The
cash on hand representing undeposited collections from
For the Judiciary Development
Fund:
|
Date of
Collections |
O.R. Number |
Amount |
Period of Delay |
|
|
6936764 to
6785 |
|
7 months & 15 days |
|
September
2008 |
6786 to
6800 & 6851 |
249.00 |
6 months & 15 days |
|
October
2008 |
6852 to
6871 |
1,314.00 |
5 months & 15 days |
|
November
2008 |
|
318.00 |
5 months & 15 days |
|
December
2008 |
|
900.00 |
4 months & 15 days |
|
January
2009 |
|
450.00 |
3 months & 15 days |
|
February
2009 |
|
896.00 |
2 months & 15 days |
|
March 2009 |
|
1,208.00 |
1 month & 15 days |
|
April 2009 |
|
490.00 |
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
For the Special Allowance for the Judiciary
Fund:
|
Date of Collections |
OR Number |
Amount |
Period of Delay |
|
|
6936830
to 6835 |
|
|
|
September 2008 |
6836 to
6850 & 6936501 to 6502 |
|
7 months & 15 days |
|
October 2008 |
6503 to
6521 |
1,086.00
|
5 months & 15 days |
|
November 2008 |
6522 to
6532 |
682.00
|
5 months & 15 days |
|
December 2008 |
6533 to
6550 & 6937001 to 7004 |
2,115.00 |
4 months & 15 days |
|
January 2009 |
7005 to
7034 |
1,050.00
|
3 months & 15 days |
|
February 2009 |
7035 to
7050 & 7101 to 7122 |
2,104.00
|
2 months & 15 days |
|
March 2009 |
7123 to
7150 |
2,992.00 |
1 months & 15 days |
|
|
6937201
to 7216 |
1,510.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the
Fiduciary Fund:
|
Date of
Collections |
O.R. Number |
Amount |
Period of Delay |
|
|
2716963 |
|
1 year, 4 months & 15 days |
|
|
2716959 |
25,000.00 |
1 year, 4
months & 15 days |
|
|
2716964 |
25,000.00 |
1 year, 4
months & 15 days |
On P94,700.00.
According to him, it is his practice to deposit/remit the cash
collections whenever he makes his monthly reports. He admitted that he was negligent in making
the report on time, resulting in the delay of remittance of Judiciary
Development Fund and Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund collections. He also opted not to deposit the cash bond
collections of election protest collection to the Municipal Treasurer's Office
(MTO) for reason that it is the source of all expenses in case of revision as
provided by the Rules of Procedures in Election Contest (Annex “B”).
We find the explanation of Mr.
Gimena on his failure to deposit to the MTO the cash collections amounting to P75,000.00
in election protest cases and the JDF and SAJF collections unmeritorious. He kept the cash collections in election
protest cases in his personal possession for almost one year. The P75,000.00 collections in election
protest cases were part of the P150,000.00 he collected in November
2007. The other half P75,000.00
was deposited in November 2007 to the MTO under MTO OR Nos. 1230960 to 962 as
shown in the attached photocopy of the Certificate of Deposits issued by the
MTO (Annex “C”).
The
undeposited collections of cash on hand could have earned interest to the
JDF/SAJF had he not kept the amount in his personal possession. He is allowed to purchase Postal Money Orders
(PMOs) from the Local Post Office payable to the Chief Accountant, Accounting
Division, FMO-OCA for the JDF and SAJF collections or the nearest Land Bank
situated in Catarman,
On P12,607.00 to the Special Allowance for the
Judiciary Fund as provided for under Sec. 21 (g) of the Amended Administrative
Circular No. 35-2004 which he complied on that day. Furthermore, he was advised to deposit P6,133.00
and P75,000.00 to the JDF account & Fiduciary Fund, respectively,
which he complied also on the same day (Annexes “D” & “E”).
II. INVENTORY OF USED AND
UNUSED OFFICIAL RECEIPTS:
All two hundred thirty (230) booklets of Accountable Forms No. 51 (Official Receipts) requisitioned by the court from the Property Division, OCA were fully accounted for.
There were fifteen (15) booklets and
one hundred forty five (145) pieces of official receipts which remained unused
as of
|
Name of Accountable Form |
Inclusive Serial Numbers |
Quantity |
|
Unallocated |
6937251 to 8000 |
15 booklets |
|
JDF |
6937168 to 7200 |
33 pieces |
|
SAJF |
6937217 to 7250 |
34 pieces |
|
FF |
2716969 to 7000 |
32 pieces |
|
MF |
6936955 to 7000 |
46 pieces |
|
Total |
|
15
booklets and 145 pieces |
Hereunder are the audit computations for
each judiciary fund based on the available documents presented to the team:
III. For the JUDICIARY
DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF):
There was a total cash shortage of Nine Thousand One Hundred Sixty One (P9,161.00),
which was restituted on
Total
Collections (July 1, 1985 to March 31, 2009) P337,044.60
Less: Total Remittance (same period) 328,025.15
Balance of
Accountability – Shortage P
9,019.45 Less: Restitution on
Over-remittance (P141.55)
The shortage was due to under-remittance of collections of the following period:
|
Period |
Collection |
Deposit |
Short/(Over) |
|
1985 to 1996 |
|
|
|
|
1997 to 2001 |
85,932.00 |
82,665.00 |
3,267.00 |
|
2002 to 2004 |
124,269.60 |
122,010.40 |
2,259.20 |
|
2005 to 2006 |
54,990.00 |
52,442.25 |
2,547.75 |
|
2007 to March 2009 |
38,422.00 |
38,892.50 |
(470.50) |
|
Total |
|
|
|
IV. For the SPECIAL
ALLOWANCE FOR THE JUDICIARY FUND (SAJF):
There was a total cash shortage of Two Thousand One Hundred Twenty One &
50/100 (P2,121.50), which was restituted on
SCOPE OF AUDIT –
Total Collections (P157,791.30
Less:
Total Remittance (same Period) 155,669.80
Balance of Accountability – shortage P 2,121.50
Less:
Restitution on
Balance
of Accountability P 0.00
The
shortage was due to under-remittance of collections of the following period:
|
Period |
Collection |
Deposit |
Short/(Over) |
|
2004 |
|
|
|
|
2005 |
59,038.90 |
50,618.50 |
8,420.40 |
|
2006 |
33,000.50 |
26,570.40 |
6,430.10 |
|
2007 |
28,464.50 |
30,348.00 |
1,883.50 |
|
2008 |
19,821.50 |
35,710.30 |
(15,888.80) |
|
2009 |
6,146.00 |
11,272.00 |
(5,126.00) |
|
Total |
|
|
|
V. For the MEDIATION FUND
(MF)
There was a total cash shortage of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00),
which was restituted on
Total Collections P1,500.00
Less: Total Remittance 1,000.00
Balance of Accountability – shortage P
500.00
Less: Payments on
Balance of Accountability P 0.00
The shortage was due to under-remittance of March 2009 collections.
VI. For the CLERK OF COURT
GENERAL FUND (COCGF)
The Clerk of Court did not assess or
collect General Fund from start of collection up to
VII. For the FIDUCIARY FUND (FF)
There was a total shortage of Four
Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) which was due to undocumented withdrawals in
Criminal Case No. 8526 under Official Receipt Number 19043196. Thus, Mr. Pompeyo paid P4,000.00 on
Collections P393,310.00
Less: Withdrawals 197,000.00
Bal. of Unwithdrawn Fiduciary Fund as of
Less: Certification of deposits issued by the MTO-Mondragon 192,310.00
Balance of Accountability 4,000.00
Less: Deposit on
Balance of Accountability 0.00
Mr.
Pompeyo G. Gimena failed to deposit the cash collections in election protest
cases amounting to P75,000.00 to the Land Bank of the P15,000.00)
under SA No. 1191-1324-47.
He also failed to remit his collections of the JDF and SAJF on time, as shown below:
SCHEDULE 1:
|
Date of Collections |
Date Deposited |
Amount |
Period of Delay |
|
October 2007 |
|
|
10 months |
|
November 2007 |
|
11,975.00 |
9 months |
|
December 2007 |
|
531.00 |
8 months |
|
January 2008 |
|
3,087.00 |
7 months |
|
February 2008 |
|
510.00 |
6 months |
|
March 2008 |
|
708.00 |
5 months |
|
April 2008 |
|
804.00 |
4 months |
|
May 2008 |
|
717.00 |
3 months |
|
June 2008 |
|
210.00 |
2 months |
|
July 2008 |
|
749.50 |
1 months |
|
Total |
|
|
|
SCHEDULE 2:
|
Date of Collections |
Date Deposited |
Amount |
Period of Delay |
|
July 2004 |
|
|
1 year & 11 months |
|
August 2004 |
|
154.00 |
1 year & 10 months |
|
September 2004 |
|
1,596.90 |
1 year & 9 months |
|
October 2004 |
|
725.50 |
1 year & 8 months |
|
November 2004 |
|
3,968.10 |
1 year & 7 months |
|
December 2004 |
|
3,541.50 |
1 year & 6 months |
|
February 2005 |
|
4,709.00 |
9 months |
|
March 2005 |
|
3,866.50 |
8 months |
|
April 2005 |
|
7,758.30 |
7 months |
|
May 2005 |
|
5,912.50 |
6 months |
|
June 2005 |
|
8,921.50 |
5 months |
|
July 2005 |
|
8,733.00 |
4 months |
|
August 2005 |
|
6,825.00 |
3 months |
|
September 2005 |
|
3,893.00 |
2 months |
|
January 2006 |
|
2,918.50 |
5 months |
|
February 2006 |
|
5,640.00 |
4 months |
|
March 2006 |
|
1,534.00 |
3 months |
|
April 2006 |
|
3,932.00 |
2 months |
|
July 2006 |
|
2,324.50 |
8 months |
|
August 2006 |
|
1,782.00 |
7 months |
|
September 2006 |
|
4,332.00 |
6 months |
|
October 2006 |
|
3,373.50 |
5 months |
|
November 2006 |
|
2,269.00 |
4 months |
|
December 2006 |
|
1,612.50 |
3 months |
|
March 2007 |
|
3,878.00 |
6 months |
|
April 2007 |
|
1,861.50 |
5 months |
|
May 2007 |
|
1,993.00 |
4 months |
|
June 2007 |
|
805.00 |
3 months |
|
July 2007 |
|
2,700.00 |
2 months |
|
Total |
|
[ |
|
Aside from the fact that the collections from the Judiciary Development Fund, Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund and cash collections in election protest cases were not remitted on time (Schedules 1 & 2), the Team found that Mr. Pompeyo violated Administrative Circular No. 3-2000, dated June 15, 2000, which states that the aggregate total of the deposit slips for any particular month should always be equal to and tally with the total collections for that month as reflected in the Monthly Report of Collections and Deposits and Cash Book. He violated Section A(2) of Circular No. 50-95, whereby all Clerks of Court of the lower courts are directed to deposit all collections from bailbonds, rental deposits and other fiduciary collections within twenty-four (24) hours by the Clerk of Court concerned, upon receipt thereof, following the same guidelines laid down in Circular No. 13-19 dated March 1, 1992, with the Land Bank of the Philippines, the authorized government depository bank for the Judiciary. Clerks of Court are not authorized to keep their collections in their custody. He also violated OCA Circular No. 113-2004, the guidelines and procedures in the submission of monthly reports of collections, and deposits to the Accounting Division, Financial Management office, Office of the Court Administrator because of his failure to submit the monthly reports of collections, deposits and withdrawals.
In keeping the cash on hand for almost a year in the personal possession of Mr. Gimena, it exposes the risk of being lost or malversed and deprived the court of interest income, if collections were deposited on time in the bank.
x x x x
Indeed, Mr. Gimena had been remiss in the performance of his duties as Clerk of Court. However, since Mr. Gimena had already been relieved as accountable officer and he had restituted the shortages in his collection and deposited the cash on hand immediately upon advice by the Team, we find that a penalty of suspension without pay and a fine should imposed for the infractions committed.
Furthermore, the withholding of Mr. Gimena's salaries was due to his failure to submit monthly reports of collections, deposits and withdrawals to the Financial Management Office, OCA, despite warnings and follow-up communications. Considering that the audit on the books of accounts of Mr. Gimena has been finalized, his withheld salaries can now be released.
In view of the foregoing, we respectfully recommended that:
A. This report be docketed as an administrative complaint against Mr. Pompeyo G. Gimena, incumbent Clerk of Court of MCTC, Mondragon-San Roque, Northern Samar for the delay in the deposit of collections and non submission of monthly reports of collections, deposits and withdrawals in violation of Administrative Circular No. 3-2000 and OCA Circular 113-2004 dated June 15, 2000 and September 16, 2004, respectively;
B. Ms. Pompeyo G. Gimena be SUSPENDED for
one (1) month without pay and FINED in the amount of FIVE
THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) for delay in the deposit of collections
exposing to the risk of being malversed and depriving the Court of interest
income with a STERN WARNING that similar act will be dealt with more
severely in the future;
C. The withheld salaries and allowances of Mr. Pompeyo G. Gimena, Clerk of Court II of MCTC, Mondragon-San Roque, be released for humanitarian consideration;
D.
Ms. Nila A. Tuballas, incumbent Officer-in-Charge/Stenographer, MCTC,
Mondragon-San Roque,
1. Effectively exercise control and supervision over the court personnel especially those in charge with the collection/deposits/withdrawals and recording of all court funds, and submission of monthly reports; and
2. Keep herself abreast/updated with the court issuance & strictly comply with the provisions there of, particularly on the proper handling of judiciary funds; and
E. Presiding Judge Emerenciana O. Manook be DIRECTED to MONITOR the Officer-in Charge, Ms. Nila A. Tuballas to ensure strict compliance with the circulars on the proper handling of judiciary funds and adhere strictly to the issuance of the Court to avoid repetition the same offenses committed as enumerated above.
In its Memorandum for the Chief
Justice dated
On January 10, 2007, the FMO OCA again
requested authority from the Chief Justice to withhold the salaries of Gimena for
non-submission of monthly reports of collections, deposits and withdrawals
despite due notices of the following accounts, to wit:
Accounts Period
Special Allowance for Judiciary
Fund April 2004 to
Judiciary Development Fund February 2004, July 2004 to
February 2007
Fiduciary Fund None
Gimena complied in September 2007; however,
his salaries were not released despite submission of the compliance in the
above accounts because again, he failed to submit the succeeding monthly
reports of collections and deposits from
In a letter dated
It has become my practice to deposit/remit my cash collections whenever I make my monthly report. I have been lately negligent in making this report on time resulting in the delay of my remittance of the JDF and the SA[J]F. Rest assured, however, that I have not used any of said amount for my personal benefit and as of today, I have already remitted/deposited all amount according to your audit and reconciliation of my book of accounts. The corresponding disbursement vouchers and acknowledgment receipts are all hereto attached.
As
to the amount of P75,000.00 (FF), the same has already been deposited
with the Office of the Municipal Treasurer, LGU-Mondragon,
Wherefore, I beg the indulgence of your Honorable Office and I commit myself to make my monthly report on time and that all these mistakes will not happen again.
On
Effective as of this date, collection of money accruing to this Court shall be transferred from Mr. Pompeyo G. Gimena, Clerk of Court, to Mrs. Nila a. Tuballas, Stenographer, who shall accept, sign for and keep in her custody the money which must be deposited immediately to the depository Bank on a daily basis, weekly basis, or monthly basis. Mrs. Tuballas is further instructed to submit a written daily report of cash payment made to the Court.[2]
The
Court agrees with the findings of the OCA that Gimena is administratively
liable, but modifies its recommended penalty.
Administrative Circular No. 3-2000, dated
ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO. 3-2000
TO: THE
COURT OF APPEALS, SANDIGANBAYAN, COURT OF TAX APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS,
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURTS, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS, SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS AND SHARI’A
CIRCUIT COURTS
SUBJECT: RE: GUIDELINES
IN THE ALLOCATION
OF THE LEGAL FEES COLLECTED
UNDER RULE 141 OF THE RULES OF COURT, AS AMENDED, BETWEEN THE GENERAL FUND AND
THE JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND.
x x x x
II. PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
A. Judiciary
Development Fund.
1. Duty of the Clerks of Court, Officer-in-Charge
or Accountable Officers. The Clerks of
Court, Officers-in-Charge of the Office of the Clerk of Court, or their
accountable duly authorized representatives designated by them in writing, who
must be accountable officers, shall receive the Judiciary Development Fund
collections, issue the proper receipt therefor, maintain a separate cash book
properly marked CASH BOOK FOR JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND, deposit such
collections in the manner herein prescribed, and render the proper Monthly
Report of Collections and Deposits for said Fund.
2. Depository Bank for the Fund. – The amounts
accruing to the Fund shall be deposited for the account of the Judiciary
Development Fund, Supreme Court,
In cases of
remittances through PMOs, Clerks of Courts/Accountable Officers are directed to
check the entries on the PMO as to (a) date (staled PMOs should not be
remitted); (b) amount in words and figures; and (c) signature of the
Postmaster, to avoid inconveniences.
3.
Systems and Procedures. –
x x x x
c. In the RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC, SDC and
SCC. – The daily collections for the Fund in these courts shall be deposited
everyday with the nearest LBP branch for the account of the Judiciary
Development Fund, Supreme Court, Manila – SAVINGS ACCOUNT No. 0591-0116-34 or
if depositing daily is not possible, deposits for the Fund shall be at the end
of every month, provided, however, that whenever collections for the Fund reach
P500.00, the same shall be deposited immediately even before the period
above-indicated.
x x x x
d. Rendition of Monthly Report. – Separate “Monthly Report of Collections and Deposits” shall be regularly prepared for the Judiciary Development Fund which shall be submitted to the Chief Accountant, FMO, OCA, copy furnished the FMBO, Supreme Court, the Fiscal Monitoring Division within ten (10) days after the end of every month. Duplicate copies of the official receipts issued during such month covered and validated copy of the Deposit Slips, should likewise be submitted. Deposit Slips that are not machine validated shall not be considered as deposits.
The aggregate total of the Deposit Slips for any particular month should always be equal to and tally with the total collections for that month as reflected in the Monthly Report of Collections and Deposits, and Cash Book.
x x x x
B. General Fund
(GF)
(1) Duty of the Clerks of Court, Officer-in-Charge or Accountable Officers. – The Clerks of Court, Officers-in-Charge of the office of the Clerk of Court, or their accountable duly authorized representatives designated by them in writing, who must be accountable officers, shall receive the General Fund collections, issue the proper receipt therefor, maintain a separate cash book properly marked CASH BOOK FOR CLERK OF COURT’S GENERAL FUND AND SHERIFF'S GENERAL FUND, deposit such collection in the manner herein prescribed, and render the proper Monthly Report of Collections and Deposits for said Fund.
(2) Depository Bank of the GF.- The amounts accruing to the Fund shall be deposited for the account of the General Fund, Bureau of Treasury, by the Clerks of Court, Officers-in-Charge of the Office of the Clerk of Court in the authorized government depository bank. For this purpose, the depository bank for the GF shall be the LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP) or its branches. In the absence of a LBP Branch, Postal Money Orders (PMO's) payable to the Chief Accountant, SC (OCA) can be purchased from the Local Post Office and sent to the Chief Accountant, SC (OCA) for deposit to the Bureau of Treasury.
The aggregate total of the Deposit Slips for any particular month should always be equal to and tally tally with the total collections for that month as reflected in the Monthly Report of Collections and Deposits, and the Cash Bank.
x x x x
Strict observance of this rules and regulations in hereby enjoined. The Clerks of Court, Officer-in-Charge shall exercise close supervision over their respective duly authorized representatives to ensure strict compliance herewith and shall be held administratively accountable for failure to do so. Failure to comply with any of these rules and regulations shall mean the withholding of the salaries and allowances of those concerned until compliance thereof is duly affected, pursuant to Section 122 of P.D. No. 1445 dated June 11, 1978, without prejudice to such further disciplinary action the Court may take against them.
(Signed)
HILARIO
G. DAVIDE, JR.
Chief Justice
In OCA Circular No. 113-2004 dated
OCA CIRCULAR NO.
113-2004
TO: ALL CLERKS
OF COURT OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS (RTC), SHARI’A DISTRICT COURTS (SDC),
METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS (MeTC), MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS (MCTC), MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS (MTC), AND SHARI’A CIRCUIT
COURTS (SCC)
SUBJECT: SUBMISSION OF MONTHLY REPORTS OF COLLECTIONS
AND DEPOSITS
The following guidelines and procedures are hereby established for purposes of uniformity in the submission of Monthly Reports of Collections and Deposits, to wit:
1. The Monthly Reports of Collections and Deposits for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF), Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) and Fiduciary Fund (FF) shall be:
1.1. Certified correct by the Clerk of Court
1.2. Duly subscribed and sworn to before the Executive/Presiding Judge
1.3. Sent not later than the 10th day of each succeeding month to –
The Chief Accountant
Accounting Division
Financial Management Office
Office of the Court Administrator
Supreme
Court of the
2. The following documents shall be attached to the reports:
A. For Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)
a. Duplicate copies of the official receipts issued
b. Machine validated deposit slips, if collections are remitted/deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), or Postal Money Order (PMO), if collections are remitted through PMO.
B. For Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ)
a. Duplicate copies of the official receipts issued
b. Machine validated deposit slips, if collections are remitted/deposited with the LBP, or PMO, if collections are remitted through PMO
C. For Fiduciary Fund (FF)
a. Duplicate copies of the official receipts issued
b. Machine validated deposit slips, if collections are deposited with the LBP, or certified true copies of the official receipts issued by the Provincial/City/Municipal Treasurer, if collections are deposited with the Treasurer’s Office.
c. In case of withdrawal:
c.1. Copy of the Court Order
c.2. Original Official Receipt (OR) or certified true copy of OR
c.3. Duplicate or certified true copy of withdrawal slip and disbursement voucher if collections are deposited in a savings account with the LBP, or a copy of the check and disbursement voucher if collections are deposited in a current account with the LBP, or disbursement voucher, if collections are deposited with the PTO/CTO/MTO
c.3.3 Copy of the acknowledgment receipt
3. In case no transaction is made within the month, written notice thereof shall be submitted to the aforesaid Office not later than the 10th day of the succeeding month.
Henceforth, all Clerks of Court shall only submit monthly reports for the three (3) funds, namely: JDF, SAF, and FF.
The former Special Allowance for Justices and Judges (SAJJ) shall be now described as Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ).
Circular No. 44-2000 is hereby revoked.
This Circular shall be effective
beginning
(Signed)
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.[3]
Court
Administrator
During the examination of the books
of accounts of MCTC, Mondragon-San Roque, the Financial Audit Team called the
attention of Gimeno with regard to the shortage of P40.00 during the
cash count on April 15, 2009 and his failure to timely deposit the court
collections in the total amount of P94,740.00, specifically on the
following: JDF in the amount of P6,133.00
(from August 20, 2008 to April 14, 2009); SAJF in the amount of P12,607.00
(from August 20, 2008 to April 14, 2009); MF in the amount of P1,000.00
(from March 26 to April 11, 2009); and FF in the amounts of P25,000.00 +
P25,000.00 + P25,000.00 or a total of P75,000.00 (November
8 and 16, 2007).
In his letter dated P75,000.00
collected from election protest cases was part of the P150,000.00 he
collected in November 2007 which he kept in his personal possession for almost
one year (should be more than one year) and, thus, posed the danger of being
lost or malversed and deprived the court of interest income. The failure to remit on time judiciary
collections deprives the court of interest that may be earned if the amounts
are deposited in a bank.[8] His “mistaken belief that the P75,000.00
FF need not be deposited or remitted since it was the source for all expenses
in case of revision as provided by the Rules of Procedure in Election Contest” would
not constitute valid excuse. Unfamiliarity
with procedures will not exempt him from liability. As Clerk of Court II, Gimeno is expected to
keep abreast of all applicable laws, jurisprudence and administrative circulars
pertinent to his office. As custodian of
court funds and revenues, 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 funds in
their custody.[9]
The Court finds Gimena guilty of two
(2) offenses, i.e., delay in the deposit of collections and
non-submission of monthly reports of collections, deposits and withdrawals in
violation of Administrative Circular No. 3-2000 (dated June 15, 2000) and OCA
Circular No. 113-2004 (September 16, 2004).
The OCA recommended two penalties for the said offenses, albeit in the
alternative — suspension for one (1) month without pay or fine in the amount of
five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) with a stern warning that similar act
will be dealt with more severely in the future.
This should be modified. In Re:
Report on Audit and Physical Inventory of the Records of Cases in MTC of
Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija,[10]
therein clerk of court was found guilty of gross neglect of duty for failure to
timely turn over the court collections and submit monthly reports and, thus, dismissed
from the service. Similarly, in Sollesta
v. Mission,[11] aside from
failure to submit monthly reports, therein clerk of court restituted the misappropriated
court funds, but was still found guilty of gross neglect of duty and, therefore,
dismissed from the service.
As to the proper sanction to be
imposed upon Gimena, the Court applies the rules under Sections 54 and 55, Rule
IV (Penalties), of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service as follows:
Section 54. Manner of Imposition. When applicable, the imposition of the penalty maybe made in accordance with the manner provided herein below:
a. The minimum of the penalty shall be imposed where only mitigating and no aggravating circumstances are present.
b. The medium of the penalty shall be imposed where no mitigating and aggravating circumstances are present.
c. The maximum of the penalty shall be imposed where only aggravating and no mitigating circumstances are present.
d. Where aggravating and mitigating circumstances are present, paragraph [a] shall be applied where there are more mitigating circumstances present; paragraph [b] shall be applied when the circumstances equally offset such other; and paragraph [c] shall be applied when there are more aggravating circumstances.
Section 55. Penalty for the Most Serious Offense. If the respondent is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge or count and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances.
Jurisprudence abound that delayed
remittance of cash collections by the clerk of court or cash clerk constitutes
gross neglect of duty and imposed the supreme penalty of dismissal.[12] Hence, the imposable penalty upon Gimena
should be dismissal from the service. However,
since he pleaded that he did not malverse any of the amounts collected for his
personal benefit and had subsequently remitted the subject amounts, as shown by
the attached disbursement vouchers and acknowledgment receipts, with no
outstanding accountabilities, these can be taken as mitigating circumstances
which warrant the imposition of the lower penalty of suspension of one (1)
month without pay. This is in line with Section
53 of Rule IV (Penalties) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the
Civil Service[13] and
some decided cases wherein therein respondents subsequently fully remitted all collections.[14]
WHEREFORE, for delay
in the deposit of cash collections, in violation of the Court’s Administrative
Circular No. 3-2000 dated June 15, 2000, and non-submission of monthly reports
of collections, deposits and withdrawals, in violation of Office of the Court
Administrator Circular No. 113-2004 dated September 16, 2004, Pompeyo G. Gimena,
Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Mondragon-San Roque,
Northern Samar, is found GUILTY of gross neglect of duty and SUSPENDED
for
a period of one (1) month without pay with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE
CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
Associate
Justice
[1] Dated
[2] Annex “A” of the Memorandum for
the Court Administrator dated
[3] Now a Member of this Court.
[4] Re: Report of Acting Presiding
Judge Wilfredo F. Herico on Missing Cash Bonds in Criminal Case Nos. 750 and
812, A.M. No. 00-3-108-RTC,
[5] Soria v. Oliveros, A.M. No.
P-00-1372,
[6] Report on the Financial Audit
Conducted on the Books of Accounts of Mr. Agerco P. Balles, MTCC-OCC,
[7] Muin v. Avestruz, Jr., A.M.
No. P-04-1831,
[8] Sollesta v.
[9] Report on the Financial Audit
Conducted on the Books of Accounts of Mr. Agerco P. Balles, MTCC-OCC, Tacloban City,
supra note 6; Office of the Court Administrator v. Bernardino,
A.M. No. P-97-1258,
[10] A.M. No. 95-6-55-MTC,
[11] A.M. No. P-03-1755,
[12] Report on the Financial Audit
Conducted on the Books of Accounts of Mr. Agerco P. Balles, MTCC-OCC, Tacloban City,
supra note 6; Report on the Financial Audit Conducted in the
MCTC-Maddela, Quirino, A.M. No. P-09-2598,
[13] Sec. 53. Extenuating, Mitigating, Aggravating, or Alternative Circumstances. — In the determination of the penalties to be imposed, mitigating, aggravating and alternative circumstances attendant to the commission of the offense shall be considered.
x x x x x
l. Other analogous circumstances
Nevertheless, in the appreciation thereof, the same must be invoked or pleaded by the proper party, otherwise, said circumstances shall not be considered in the imposition of the proper penalty. The Commission, however, in the interest of substantial justice may take and consider these circumstances.
[14] Re: Misappropriation of the
Judiciary Fund Collections by Ms. Juliet C. Banag, Clerk of Court, MTC,
Plaridel, Bulacan, A.M. No. P-02-1641,