Dishonest clerk of court dismissed with accessory penalties - A.M. No. P-05-2082

A.M. No. P-05-2082

"x x x.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court has taken steps to minimize, if not eliminate, such irregularities in the handling of the collections of the courts. In OCA Circular No. 88-2007, issued on August 28, 2007, the Court adopted the guidelines proposed by the OCA for the payment of fees, and its modes and effect, thus, amending Section 1, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. The Court has initially implemented the amendments in all collegiate courts and, as designated pilot testing areas, in all lower courts in the National Capital Region, and in Cebu City, Mandaue City and Lapu-Lapu City.[16]

In the present administrative case, it is clear that the respondent created the mess the audit team discovered in the management of the court’s funds during the period of April 1993 to May 2004. Specifically, the audit team noted that a number of accountable documents (such as official receipts, deposit and withdrawal slips, cashbooks, and passbooks) were missing. These irregularities occurred because the respondent allowed them to happen; at the very least, his failure to supervise and monitor his subordinate already constituted gross negligence in the performance of his duties.

The respondent admitted that when he assumed office in 1993, he assigned to Necesito in good faith “the collections, remittances, financial reports and the accountable forms only to find out that some are already missing.”[17] This is a highly irresponsible move. As clerk of court, the respondent is the court’s accountable officer, not the cash clerk. No amount of good faith can relieve him of his duty to properly administer and safeguard the court’s funds. As the Court said in an earlier case, clerks of court are officers of the law who perform vital functions in the prompt and sound administration of justice.[18] They are designated custodians of the court’s funds, revenues, records, properties and premises.[19] They are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of such funds and property.[20] We find the respondent liable for gross neglect of duty.

In Soria v. Oliveros,[21] the Court stressed that from the time the respondent accepted his appointment as clerk of court, he accepted the corresponding duties and responsibilities of the position. He should have developed an appropriate system so that he could efficiently attend to his tasks. As clerk of court, he is the court’s chief administrative officer. He must show competence, honesty, integrity and probity since he is in charge of safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings.

We thus find that the respondent miserably failed to perform his duties as clerk of court. Without doubt, he deserves to be sanctioned administratively for gross neglect of duty. He must be held liable for all the missing documents and the fund shortages.

Under Section 52(A)(1), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, gross neglect of duty is punishable by dismissal. Since the penalty of dismissal inherently carries with it forfeiture of retirement benefits under Section 58 of the same rule, the respondent’s financial liability has to be satisfied through his leave benefits.[22]

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Clerk of Court Hermenegildo I. Marasigan, Regional Trial Court, Kabacan, North Cotabato, is hereby found LIABLE for gross neglect of duty and is DISMISSED from the service, with FORFEITURE of all leave credits and his retirement benefits with prejudice to re-employment in any government office, including government-owned and controlled corporations. The Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator is directed to process the respondent’s accrued leave credits, dispensing with the documentary requirements, and to remit the cash value of this benefit to the Fiduciary Fund Account of the Regional Trial Court, Kabacan, North Cotabato, to answer for his shortages.

Hermenegildo I. Marasigan is directed to RESTITUTE the amount of One Million Seven Hundred Forty-Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifteen Pesos and Two Centavos (P1,747,715.02), representing the amount of shortages as stated in the Report dated October 7, 2008 of the Office of the Court Administrator, hereby summarized as follows:

x x x.

The Court hereby declares the forfeiture of all the respondent’s accrued leave credits whose monetary value shall be applied to the amount ordered to be restituted. The Legal Office, Office of the Court Administrator is directed to file the appropriate cases against the respondent for the recovery of the remaining shortages not covered by the monetary value of the respondent’s accrued leave credits.

Further, the Court hereby DIRECTS the Office of the Court Administrator to SUBMIT, as required in OCA Circular No. 88-2007, the written report on the pilot testing of the amended rule and its implementing guidelines, for the Court to determine whether the check payment system should now be adopted in all courts, within ninety (90) days from notice.

SO ORDERED."