Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
OFFICE OF
THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant,
-
versus - Ms. ROSEBUEN B. VILLETA, Clerk of Court II,
Municipal Trial Court, Oton, Iloilo, Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-06-2211
(Formerly A.M. No. 06-5-175-MTC)
Present: CORONA, C.J., CARPIO, CARPIO
MORALES, velasco, JR., NACHURA, leonardo-de castro, brion, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, *DEL CASTILLO, ABAD, VILLARAMA,
JR., perez, mendoza, and sereno, JJ. Promulgated: November 23, 2010 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
PER CURIAM: |
|
|
|
|
We resolve the present
administrative matter that traces its roots to the financial audit conducted on
the books of account of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Oton, Iloilo, for the period November 1, 1993 to August 31,
2005. Ms. Rosebuen B. Villeta, Clerk of Court
II of the court, is the accountable officer.
The Antecedents
The relevant facts are set out in the
Memorandum/Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated July 28, 2008,[1]
and are summarized below.
The OCA conducted the audit in 2006, due
to the non-submission of financial reports to the OCA Financial Management
Office.
The audit team made the following
findings:[2]
1. An over-remittance of P1,050.50 in the General Fund (GF) due to Villeta’s practice of not
regularly depositing her collections.
2. A shortage of P805.60 in the collections for the
Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF)
for the period November 11, 2003 to August 31, 2005.
3. A shortage of P1,672.80 in the collections for the
Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) for
November 11, 2003 to August 31, 2005.
4. A shortage of P229,300.00 in the collections for the
Fiduciary Fund (FF) coming from
rental deposits and cash bonds; withdrawals of cash bonds must be supported by
a court order and an acknowledgment receipt from the accused; withdrawals are
disallowed without these supporting documents.
The amount of P125,000.00 was temporarily credited in favor of Villeta pending her
submission of copies of the court orders and acknowledgment receipts;
otherwise, the amount shall be added to her accountability that would then amount
to P354,400.00.
5. Tampering of official receipts
involving several criminal cases where the accused’s cash bonds were
mispresented as collections either in the JDF or GF account instead of the FF
account; worse, the amounts in the original copies of receipts were understated
in the triplicate copies of the receipts.
The audit team reported that when it
confronted Villeta with its findings, she admitted using the
undeposited/unremitted collections for her personal gain.[3]
In a Resolution dated July 26, 2006,[4]
the Court directed Villeta to restitute, within 15 days, her shortages in the SAJF
(P805.60),
JDF (P1,672.80), and
FF (P229,300.00)
collections, for a total of P231,778.40; to furnish the Fiscal Management Division, Court
Management Office with machine-validated deposit slips; and to submit the
supporting documents for disallowed withdrawals and to explain why she should
not be administratively sanctioned for her shortages and for tampering with the
official receipts of cash bond deposits.
The Court re-docketed the report as a regular administrative matter and
suspended Villeta during the pendency of the case.
The OCA referred the matter to
Presiding Judge Ernesto H. Mediodia, MTC, Oton, Iloilo, particularly the
reported tampering of official receipts for the FF “to determine the extent of
the responsibility of the respondent in the anomaly.”[5]
Judge Mediodia, in his report dated
August 22, 2006,[6]
confirmed the OCA audit team’s initial findings on the tampering of the
official receipts of the accused’s cash bonds in the criminal cases cited in
the report. The judge recommended that
Villeta be charged with dishonesty and gross misconduct, without prejudice to
the filing of appropriate criminal charges against her.
The OCA’s Evaluation of Villeta’s Explanation
In her letter dated April 10, 2007,[7]
Villeta explained that her shortage for the SAJF is only P18.80 and not P805.60 as reported by the audit
team. She presented the following
computation:
|
Beginning
balance (end of July 2005)
|
|
|
August 2005 collections |
2,115.40 |
|
September 2005 collections |
1,408.00
|
|
Undeposited collections |
3,580.60 |
|
Less: August deposit |
|
|
September deposit 1,561.80 |
3,
106.40 |
|
Total undeposited collections |
========== |
The OCA found Villeta’s explanation
unacceptable, clarifying that the deposit for September 2005 exceeded the
collections by P153.80 (P1,561.80 less P1,408.00); the excess may be part of the collections for August 2005, but
Villeta never presented the September 2005 collections to the audit team;
hence, there was no way of determining if the excess was part of the
undeposited collections for August 2005; Villeta’s computation was limited only
to the computation for August to September 2005, while the audit covered the period from November 2003 to
August 2005.
The OCA made the same observation
regarding Villeta’s shortage for the JDF, which she claimed to be only P81.20 and not P1,672.80. Likewise, she presented the following
computation:
|
Beginning balance (end of July 2005)
|
|
|
August 2005 collections |
5,702.80 |
|
September 2005 collections |
6,042.00 |
|
Undeposited collections |
12,187.60 |
|
Less: August deposit |
|
|
September deposit 6,706.40 |
12, 106.40 |
|
Total undeposited collections |
========== |
The OCA noted that
the deposit for September 2005 exceeded the collections by P664.40 (P6,706.40 less P6,042.00); the difference may be part
of the undeposited collections for August 2005 but again, Villeta did not
present the September 2005 collections.
With respect to the FF account,
Villeta presented documents that considerably reduced her shortage for the
account, with the following computation:
|
Collections
(October, 1995 to August, 2005) |
|
|
ADD: collections
with tampered receipts (not presented during the audit) |
37,000.00 |
|
Total |
|
|
LESS: Withdrawals
(with valid documents |
|
|
during the audit) |
|
|
Additional withdrawals (with
valid |
|
|
documents not presented during
the |
|
|
audit but only on April 10,
2007) |
|
|
Withdrawals with valid documents |
|
|
(compliance with this Court’s |
|
|
resolution) |
1,163,500.00 |
|
Total: Unwithdrawn Fiduciary Fund |
|
|
Less: Deposits with the Municipal |
|
|
Treasurer’s Office |
|
|
Additional deposits with the MTO |
|
|
(not presented during the
audit) 19,100.00 |
|
|
Deposits with Land Bank of the
net |
|
|
of unwithdrawn interest 194,000.00 |
307,100.00 |
|
Balance of Accountability as of August 31,
2005 |
|
|
Less: Restitution (September 27, 2005) |
100,000.00 |
|
Balance of Shortage |
=========== |
The P37,000.00 addition to Villeta’s total
collections arose from the report of Ms. Ivy Britanico, Officer-in-Charge,
Office of the Clerk of Court. Britanico
disclosed that two litigants went to her office asking for the refund of their
cash bonds; they showed original copies of official receipts for the bond, as
follows: OR No. 1502874 for P27,000.00 issued on July 15, 2003 and OR No. 15026397 for P10,000.00 issued on January 9,
2004. Britanico discovered that these
collections were not reported to the Court and the triplicate copies had been
tampered with to reflect a different transaction and a smaller amount.
Villeta admitted that she tampered
with the triplicate copies of the official receipts of the cash bonds, but
denied doing it for personal gain, claiming that she did it to help poor
litigants. The litigants, according to
her, were accused of violating Presidential Decree No. 1602 (Illegal Possession
of Gambling Paraphernalia), and the cases were set for arraignment immediately
after they posted their cash bonds, with most of them pleading guilty; to ease
the burden of the accused in following up the release of their bonds (the bank
required two identification papers for the encashment checks), she came up with
the scheme which gave rise to her present predicament. Under the scheme, she immediately refunded to
the litigants their cash bonds as soon as the case was disposed of, an order
for the release of the bond was issued, and upon presentment of the original
copy of the receipt. She claimed that
she had no malicious intent in tampering with the receipts and proof of this is
the fact that she did not destroy said receipts, which she could have easily done.
The OCA saw no merit in Villeta’s
submissions and recommended her dismissal from the service.
The Court’s Ruling
We find the recommendations of Judge Mediodia and of the OCA to be in
order. Villeta deserves to be separated
from the service, for the following reasons:
First. She failed
to observe the rules in making deposits of court funds, particularly the
requirement of regularity and frequency of putting the funds in the bank. The shortages Villeta incurred in the JDF and
SAJF and the over-remittances in the GF, as noted by the audit team, were
mainly due to her failure to deposit or remit her collections. SC Administrative Circular No. 3-2000[8]
requires that the collections for the JDF must be deposited daily and, if this
is not possible, at the end of the month, provided that whenever the collection
exceeds P500.00, it
shall be deposited immediately even before the end of the month. Further, Amended Administrative Circular No.
35-2004[9]
provides that collections for the SAJF shall be deposited daily.
Clerks of court are not supposed to
keep funds in their custody. They have
the duty to immediately deposit their collections in authorized government
depositories and failure in this regard constitutes gross neglect of duty. Moreover, failure to comply with pertinent
Court circulars designed to promote full accountability for public funds is not
only gross neglect; it also constitutes grave misconduct.[10]
Second. Villeta
failed to render a satisfactory accounting of the shortages for the SAJF and
JDF collections. Instead, she made a
crude attempt to avoid liability by presenting computations showing smaller
shortages in collections for a two-month period (August to September 2005) when
the audit covered the period November 1993 to August 2005; worse, the
collections for September were not covered and the records of transactions for
the month were not shown to the audit team.
Third. Although the shortage in the FF collections
was substantially reduced, there still remains P38,000.00 to account for. The reduction was mainly due to the
discovery, after the audit, of the tampered receipts showing that the accused
withdrew their cash bonds, one for P27,000.00 and the other for P10,000.00. The tampering of the receipts highlighted,
rather than erased, Villeta’s culpability, for it left unanswered the question
of how many more receipts Villeta issued and tampered. Then there was Villeta’s restitution of P100,000.00 after the audit, but she failed
to explain the shortage supposed to be covered by the restitution and where the
P100,000.00 came from.
Without doubt, Villeta’s infractions –
the shortages she incurred in her collections and the tampering of cash bond
receipts – constitute grave misconduct and dishonesty, and even malversation of
public funds. As the OCA noted, Article
217 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes any public officer who, being
accountable for public funds, shall appropriate the funds. To justify conviction for malversation of
public funds, the prosecution has only to prove that the accused receive public
funds which he cannot account for or did not have in his possession and could
not give a reasonable excuse for the disappearance of the funds.[11]
Villeta cannot escape liability for
the tampered receipts and for appropriating the funds derived from the cash
bond deposits, although she claimed that she did these to ease the burden of
the litigants in withdrawing their deposits. We cannot accept these belated manifestations
of good intentions as we are convinced that she took the deposits and made use
of the funds for her personal gain. The
facts whose consequences we now decide show that she was audited; she came
short of her collections; and she failed to account for the missing funds. On the basis of these facts, we find her
liable for gross misconduct.
For her failure to live up to the
high ethical standards expected of court employees, Villeta should be dismissed[12]
and be made to restitute the amounts covered by her shortages. Significantly, the restitution can very well
be covered by Villeta’s leave credits, based on the OCA’s inquiry.
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, Ms. Rosebuen B. Villeta, Clerk of Court II, Municipal
Trial Court, Oton, Iloilo, is declared GUILTY
of grave misconduct and
dishonesty and is DISMISSED from the
service effective immediately, with forfeiture of her salaries, allowances, as
well as retirement benefits, except for accrued credits for her earned leaves. She is likewise ordered BARRED from re-employment in all branches of the government, including
government-owned and controlled corporations.
The Financial Management Office of the Office of the Court Administrator
is DIRECTED to process Villeta’s
terminal leave pay, dispensing with the usual documentary requirements, to
answer for the following:
1. P1,672.80 – Judiciary Development Fund;
2. P805.60 – Special Allowance for the
Judiciary Fund; and
3. P38,900.00 – Fiduciary Fund; and the
balance to be released to Villeta.
The OCA’s Legal Office is DIRECTED to file the appropriate
criminal complaint against Villeta with the Office of the Ombudsman.
SO ORDERED.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice |
|
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice (on wellness leave) MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO Associate
Justice MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Associate
Justice |
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate
Justice MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO Associate
Justice |
|
|
|
* On wellness leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 664-671.
[2] Id. at 4-10; Audit Team Report to Court Administrator Christopher Lock.
[3] Id. at 7.
[4] Id. at 34-35.
[5] Id. at 41.
[6] Id. at 42-47.
[7] Id. at 248-250.
[8] Took effect on June 15, 2000.
[9] Took effect on August 20, 2004.
[10] Re: Report on the Audit Conducted in MTC, Apalit-San Simon, Pampanga, A.M. No. 08-1-30-MCTC, April 20, 2008, 551 SCRA 58.
[11] People of the Philippines v. Pepito, G.R. Nos. 112761-65, February 3, 1997, 267 SCRA 358.
[12] Supra note 10.