Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD
DIVISION
|
OFFICE OF THE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant, - versus - MS. ESTRELLA NINI, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities-Bogo, City of Respondent. |
|
A.M. No.
P-11-3002 (Formerly
A.M. No. 11-9-96-MTCC) Present: VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson, PERALTA, ABAD, REYES,* JJ. Promulgated: April 11, 2012 |
x --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This administrative matter originated
from a financial audit conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
on the books of accounts of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bogo City,
Cebu [formerly Municipal Circuit Trial Court Bogo-San Remigio, Cebu] (MTCC)
pursuant to Travel Order No. 37-2011 dated
The books of accounts of the MTCC were last audited in September 1995 in
view of the retirement of former Clerk of Court, Rosela M. Condor. The audit noted an under-remittance of ₱367.80
for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) account which was already
restituted on
In this case, the financial audit
examination covered the accountability of Estrella Y. Nini (Nini) who
was appointed as permanent Clerk of Court on
Covering the period from
a.
The cash
examination conducted on
b.
All Supreme Court
official receipts requisitioned from the Property Division, Office of
Administrative Services (OAS) - Office of the Court Administrator were
duly accounted for.[3]
c.
Anent the
Fiduciary Fund, the books of the Clerk of Court revealed an over withdrawal of
the cashbond posted in Criminal Case No. 8664 amounting to ₱30,000.00.
When confronted by the audit team, Nini admitted that she inadvertently
released the said amount to the bondsman on
d.
Nini likewise
withdrew several forfeited bailbonds including interests from the fiduciary
funds during the period of
e.
Collections made
from
f.
With regard to
the Sheriffs Trust Fund (STF), the audit team discovered that Nini
failed to collect the mandatory ₱1,000.00 STF for every civil case filed
in court to defray the expenses incurred in the service of summons and other
court processes. Nini admitted this and reasoned that no guidelines were issued
regarding the said fund.[7]
g.
The courts file
copies of financial reports were organized, orderly and complete, thus, the
team had no difficulty in verifying the accuracy and correctness of the courts
financial reports. Moreover, all transactions affecting the collections,
deposits and withdrawals of the funds maintained by the court were properly
recorded in their respective Official Cashbooks.[8]
h.
Certain overages
and shortages were noted in the various court funds, as follows:
A) Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)
|
Total
Collections, from |
₱ 978,433.45 |
|
Less: Total Deposits, same
period |
978,483.45 |
|
Balance of
Accountability/ Shortage |
(₱ 50.00) |
The
overage of ₱50.00 was due to the over deposit of collections for the
month of March 2011.
B) Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF)
|
Total
Collections, from |
₱ 568,213.00 |
|
Less: Total Deposits, same
period |
562,498,80 |
|
Balance of
Accountability/ Over Remittance |
₱ 5,714.20 |
The shortage of
₱5,714.20 resulted from the following:
|
Erroneous
deposits of SAJF collections to: |
|
|
GF- New Account |
₱
2,200.00 |
|
GF- Old Account |
2,370.00 |
|
Undeposited collections
(March 2011) |
1,175.20 |
|
Over-remittances: |
|
|
|
(30.80) |
|
Nov. 2010 |
(0.20) |
|
Total |
₱ 5,714.20 |
The undeposited SAJF collections over ₱1,175.00
for
C) General Fund (GF)
A. New
|
Total
Collections, from |
₱ 00.00 |
|
Less: Total Deposits, same
period |
2,200.00 |
|
Balance of
Accountability/ Overage |
(₱ 2,200.00) |
The overage of ₱2,200.00 is comprised of
SAJF collections erroneously receipted and deposited to this fund. The General Fund-New comprises all confiscated
bailbonds and earned net interest withdrawn from the Fiduciary Fund account.
B. Old
|
Total
Collections, from |
₱ 117,264.80 |
|
Less: Total Deposits, same
period |
119,634.80 |
|
Balance of
Accountability/Shortage |
₱ (2,370.00) |
The overage of
₱2,370.00 was due to the erroneous remittance of collections to General
Fund account instead of remitting the same to the Special Allowance for the
Judiciary Fund Account.
D) Mediation Fund
|
Total Collections, from |
₱ 251,500.00 |
|
Less: Total Deposits, same
period |
246,000.00 |
|
Balance of
Accountability/Shortage |
₱ 5,500.00 |
The shortage of ₱5,500.00 pertains to
March 2011 collections which was deposited on
i. The shortages/accountability of Nini
was summarized by the audit team in this wise:
|
Fund |
Accountability |
Remarks |
|
FF |
₱
204,000.00 |
Deposited on 3,4,12 & 15, 2011 |
|
STF |
0.00 |
No collection |
|
JDF |
(50.00) |
Over-remittance |
|
SAJ |
5,714.00 |
Erroneous deposit of SAJ collections |
|
GF-New |
(2,000.00) |
Erroneous Deposit to GF account |
|
GF-Old |
(2,370.00) |
Erroneous Deposit to GF account |
|
Mediation |
5,500.00 |
Deposited on |
|
Total |
₱
210,794.00 |
|
Recommendation of the OCA
In a memorandum dated
a. SUSPENDED
for SIX (6) Months, for incurring cash shortages material in
amount;
b. FINED in the
amount of Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00) for delayed remittances
of Fiduciary Fund collections which deprived the Court of the possible interest
income if the collections were deposited on time; and
c. STERLY WARNED
that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more
severely.
With respect
to Presiding Judge Dante R. Manreal (Judge
Manreal), the OCA recommended that he be:
a. DIRECTED to DESIGNATE
an Acting Clerk of Court and he/she be DIRECTED
to COLLECT the mandatory One
Thousand Pesos (P 1,000.00) for every case filed in court pursuant to paragraph
2, Section 10 of the Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 and OPEN a new account for Sheriffs Trust
Fund (STF) transactions with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) under the
name of the court, with the Executive/Presiding Judge and OIC/Clerk of Court as
authorized signatories.
b. ADVISED to STRICTLY
MONITOR the financial transactions of MTCC,
The Courts Ruling
Public office is a public
trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the
people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency,
act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.[10]
Those charged with the dispensation of justice, from the justices and judges to
the lowliest clerks, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility. Not only must their conduct at all times be characterized by
propriety and decorum but, above all else, it must be beyond suspicion.[11]
Thus, the Court does not
hesitate to condemn and sanction such improper conduct, act or omission of
those involved in the administration of justice that violates the norm of
public accountability and diminishes or tends to diminish the faith of the
public in the Judiciary.[12]
It is clear in
the findings of the audit team, as bolstered by Ninis admission, that irregularities
in the administration of court funds were indeed committed. In her explanation,[13]
Nini chiefly blamed her heavy workload for the lapses discovered by the audit
team. She attributed her shortcomings to the heavy weight of her
responsibilities as an accountable officer and an officer of the court
performing the tasks of an administrative officer, liaison officer and supply
and property custodian. Due to this, she would often deposit funds beyond the
time allowed, resulting in unremitted interest and forfeited cashbonds. Everytime she would cause the withdrawal of
interest of fiduciary funds, her practice was to place the amount inside an
envelope to be locked inside her vault together with other envelopes containing
collections from different funds, decisions of cases due for promulgation,
unused official receipts, and marked money used as evidence in criminal cases.
Undoubtedly,
Nini failed to perform her duty to the degree expected of her office. Settled is the role of clerks of court as judicial officers
entrusted with the delicate function with regard to collection of legal fees.
They are expected to correctly and effectively implement regulations relating
to proper administration of court funds. Clerks of court perform a delicate function as designated
custodians of the court's funds, revenues, records, properties, and premises.
As such, they are generally regarded as treasurer, accountant, guard, and
physical plant manager thereof. It is also their duty to ensure that the proper
procedures are followed in the collection of cash bonds. Clerks of court are
officers of the law who perform vital functions in the prompt and sound
administration of justice. Their office is the hub of adjudicative and
administrative orders, processes and concerns.[14] Hence, in case of a lapse in the performance
of their sworn duties, the
Court finds no room for tolerance and is then constrained to impose the necessary
penalty to the erring officer. Surely, Nini
must have been acquainted with the tasks of her office. She is expected to have
assumed her office with a degree of competence and alacrity worthy of this
esteemed position in the Judiciary. Hence, she should have been ready to
discharge her sworn duties with the conviction to do away with whining and
nitpicking. The Court cannot countenance this attitude, lest pardons for
ineptitude become the practice in its ranks. Indeed, the Court
zealously aims to safeguard the peoples faith in the Judiciary by improving
the route by which justice is served.
Certainly, an officer who constantly bleats about the complexity of his
responsibilities resultantly neglects his duties. Such an officer does not aid
in the Judiciarys goal and must then bear the appropriate penalty.
It is hereby emphasized that it is the duty of clerks of
court to perform their responsibilities faithfully, so that they can fully
comply with the circulars on deposits of collections. They are reminded to deposit immediately with
authorized government depositaries the various funds they have collected
because they are not authorized to keep those funds in their custody.[15] The fact that the collected amounts were kept
in the safety vault does not reduce the degree of defiance of the rules.
Records show that SC Circular Nos. 13-92 and 5-93 were not
followed by Nini. These issuances provide
the guidelines for the proper administration of court funds. The former orders
that all fiduciary collections shall be deposited immediately by the Clerk of
Court concerned upon receipt thereof, with an authorized government depositary
bank, while the latter designates the Landbank of the
Safekeeping of funds and collections is essential to an orderly
administration of justice, and no protestation of good faith can override the
mandatory nature of the circulars designed to promote full accountability for government funds.[16]Ninis unwarranted failure to fulfill these
responsibilities deserves administrative sanction.
Delay in the remittance of collection constitutes neglect of
duty.[17]
Further, the Court has stated that the failure to remit judiciary collections
on time deprives the court of the interest that may be earned if the amounts
are deposited in a bank.[18]
Under the Civil Service Rules and Omnibus Rules Implementing it, simple neglect
of duty is a less grave offense penalized with suspension for one month and one
day to six months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.[19]
It bears stressing that Clerks of Court are the chief
administrative officers of their respective courts, and, with regard to the
collection of legal fees, they perform a delicate function as judicial officers
entrusted with the correct and effective implementation of regulations thereon.
Even the undue delay in the remittances of amounts collected by them at the
very least constitutes misfeasance. On the other hand, a vital administrative
function of a judge is the effective management of his court and this includes
control of the conduct of the courts ministerial officers. It should be
brought home to both that the
safekeeping of funds and collections is essential to the goal of an orderly
administration of justice and no protestation of good faith can override the
mandatory nature of the Circulars designed to promote full accountability for
government funds.[20]
With this in mind, the Court agrees with the recommendation
of the OCA that Presiding Judge Manreal should be reminded to exercise his
administrative duty and strictly monitor the financial transactions of MTCC,
The Court is also in accord with the recommendation of the
OCA that since the Audit Team found that Nini failed to collect the mandatory
One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for the STF, Judge Manreal should be directed to
designate an Acting Clerk of Court to collect the same every case filed in
court pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 10 of the Administrative Circular No.
35-2004.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves
to declare Estrella Y. Nini, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bogo City, Cebu, GUILTY of Gross Neglect of Duty for which she is ordered SUSPENDED
for six (6) months from service, FINED Five Thousand (₱5,000.00)
Pesos for delayed
remittances of Fiduciary Fund collections and failure to collect the required
STF for Civil Cases, and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Presiding Judge Dante R. Manreal is hereby directed to DESIGNATE an Acting Clerk of Court to collect
the mandatory One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for every case filed in
court pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 10 of the Amended Administrative
Circular No. 35-2004 and OPEN a new
account for Sheriffs Trust Fund (STF) transactions with the Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) under the name of the court, with the Executive/Presiding
Judge and OIC/Clerk of Court as authorized signatories. Presiding Judge Manreal
is also advised to STRICTLY MONITOR
the financial transactions of MTCC,
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA ROBERTO A.
ABAD
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO
L. REYES
Associate Justice
* Designated as additional member of the Third
Division in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, per Special
Order No. 1210 dated
[1]
Reported in OCA Memorandum dated
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Sec. 1
of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.
[11] Re: Financial Audit on the Books of Account of Ms. Laura D. Delantar,
Clerk of Court, MTC,
[12]
[13] Rollo, pp. 104-105.
[14] OCA v. Nelia D.C. Recio, Eralyn S. Cavite,
Ruth G. Cabigas and Chona Aurelia R. Reniedo, all of the Metropolitan Trial
Court, San Juan, Metro Manila, A.M. No. P-04-1813 (Formerly A.M. No. 04-5-119-MeTC),
[15] OCA
v. Atty. Mary Ann Paduganan-Pearanda, Office of the Clerk of Court, Municipal
Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Cagayan de Oro, Misamis Oriental; and Mr. Jocelyn
Meidante, A.M. No. P-07-2355,
[16] OCA v. Atty. Mary Ann Paduganan-Penaranda, Office
of the Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Cagayan de Oro,
Misamis Oriental; and Ms. Jocelyn Meidante, supra note 15 at 188.
[17] In House Financial Audit, Conducted
on the Books of Accounts of Khalil B. Dipatuan, RTC-Malbang, Lanao Del Sur, A.M. No. P-06-2121,
[18]
[19]
[20] Office
of the Court Administrator v. Fortaleza, 434 Phil. 511, 522 (2002), citing Office
of the Court Administrator v. Bawalan, A.M. No. P-93-945,