490 Phil. 500
PER CURIAM:
The administrative cases against Clerks of Court Ermelina C. Bernardino,[1] Libertad San Juan[2] and Atty. Manuel I. Banting,[3] and Clerk Ma. Luisa Tuazon[4] deal with collections and remittances of court funds.
1. An immediate audit, examination and reconciliation of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) collections, deposits and remittances be conducted by Auditors of the FMBO or Accounting Division of the Supreme Court in the following courts/offices of the Clerk of Court:On 21 October 1996, Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño, acting on the reports of Justice Kalalo, recommended that respondents Banting and Tuazon be immediately relieved of their duties as collecting and disbursing officers.[7]a. Office of the Clerk of Court, RTCs Binangonan, Rizal
b. Municipal Trial Court of Cardona
c. Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Pililia-Jala-Jala
and for said auditors to submit their respective reports, findings and recommendations.
2. That Clerk of Court Mrs. ERMELINA C. BERNARDINO of the Municipal Trial Court of Cardona, Clerk of Court Mrs. LIBERTAD SAN JUAN of the MCTC-Pililia-Jala-Jala and RTC Clerk of Court Atty. MANUEL I. BANTING of the RTCs at Binangonan and her Cash Clerk MA. LUISA TUAZON be relieved immediately of their respective duties and replaced temporarily by other competent court personnel, pending the results of the audit to be conducted.
. . .
4. Administrative charges be filed immediately against these court personnel involved on the basis of the irregularities enumerated in this Report and to place them under preventive suspension without pay pending the result of the respective administrative complaints.[6]
1. An immediate audit, examination and reconciliation of the JDF collections, deposits and remittances be conducted by the Fiscal Audit Division, Office of the Court Administrator in the following courts:On 18 March 1997, Maria Clara L. Guzman and Leandro L. Villanueva of the Fiscal Audit Division of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted a Memorandum for then Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa on the audit they conducted on the JDF, as well as the General Fund and Fiduciary Fund, of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Cardona, Rizal, and Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Pililia-Jala-Jala, Rizal. It reads:a. Regional Trial Court, Binangonan, Rizal
b. Municipal Trial Court, Cardona, Rizal
c. Municipal Trial Court of Pililia-Jala-Jala
and for said office to submit its report, findings and recommendations within 15 days;
2. Mrs. Ermelina C. Bernardino, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Cardona, Mrs. Libertad San Juan, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Pililia-Jala-Jala, Atty. Manuel I. Banting, Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, and Ma. Luisa Tuazon, cash clerk at the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan are immediately relieved from their respective duties and temporarily replaced by other competent court personnel to be recommended by the Court Administrator pending the results of the audit to be conducted by the FMBO; . . . .[8]
MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, CARDONA, RIZALTheir Memorandum[10] containing the partial audit covering the JDF, General Fund, Sheriff’s General Fund and Fiduciary Fund of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Binangonan, Rizal, was submitted on 22 August 1997. It reads:
The Clerk of Court is Mrs. Ermelina C. Bernardino. She assumed office as MTC Clerk of Court I on June 9, 1983. The cut[-] off date of our audit was October, 1996.
Based on the JPDIO report of Justice Felipe B. Kalalo dated August 9, 1996, the last JDF remittance was made on January 15, 1995 in the amount [of] P800.00 representing collections for the month of December, 1994. Our audit showed that the amount of P800.00 actually represents collections for the months of November, 1994 (P237.50) and December, 1994 (P562.50) and was deposited on January 15, 1995 to the Land Bank of the Philippines by a deposit slip under the common JDF Savings Account No. 0591-0116-34. JDF collections for January, 1995 to July, 1996, a period of nineteen months, in the total amount of P36,441.50 was remitted to the Supreme Court Cashier’s Division under OR No. 6279551 on September 30, 1996. The amount of P40.00 and P600.00 representing JDF collections for the months of September, 1996 and October, 1996 were deposited with the LBP by way of deposit slips on October 10, 1996 and November 6, 1996.
Collections for General Fund prior to January, 1996 was being collected by the Municipal government pursuant to Section 93 of the Judiciary Act of 1948. The amount of P3,281.00 representing collections for the period January, 1996 to August, 1996 was remitted to the Supreme Court Cashier’s Division under OR No. 6278901 on September 30, 1996. Collections for the months of September (P400.00) and October, 1996 (P2,470.00) were likewise remitted to the SC Cashier’s Division on October 9, 1996 and under OR No. 6278939 and OR No. 6992545 dated November 7, 1996.
Fiduciary Fund collections started on July, 1994 in accordance with Circular No. 32-93 issued by the Office of the Court Administrator on July 9, 1993. The balance of Fiduciary Fund as of October, 1996 in the amount of P79,700.00 was verified to be deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines, Binangonan, Rizal Branch in the name of the MTC, Cardona under Savings Account No. 2391-001-24.
MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, PILILIA-JALA-JALA, RIZAL
The Clerk of Court is Mrs. Libertad San Juan. She was appointed as Clerk of Court II on March 1, 1995. The cash accountabilities of Ms. Erna Casas who was the Officer-in-charge for the period September 1, 1993 to February, 1995 was likewise included in the audit. The audit period covered was from September, 1993 to October, 1996.
The latest JDF remittance made in March, 1995 as stated in the JPDIO report in the amount of P4,937.00 represents collections for February, 1995. Collections for the period March, 1995 to August, 1996, a period of 18 months in the total amount of P39,519.50 were remitted to the Land Bank of the Philippines under the JDF common Savings Acct. No. 0591-0116-34 on September 16, 1996. JDF collections for the months of September, 1996 (P200.00) and October, 1996 (P330.00) were deposited to the LBP on October 2, 1996 and November 15, 1996 [,] respectively.
Collections for the general fund for the period September, 1993 to September, 1996 were erroneously incorporated with the collections for the JDF. This explains the large collections reflected in the JDF which is unusual for a municipal circuit trial court. The practice was stopped on September, 1996. General Fund collection for the month of October, 1996 in the amount of P23,965.00 representing interests on Fiduciary Fund deposits was deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines on October 16, 1996.
The balance of the Fiduciary Fund collections covering the period October, 1993 to October, 1996 in the total amount of P280,645.00 was found to be deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines, Tanay Branch in the name of MCTC, Jala-Jala-Pililia, Rizal under Savings Account No. 1141-0020-11 with Judge Santos, MTC Morong, acting as judge in Jala-Jala, and Mrs. San Juan as signatories.
From the foregoing, it is concluded that Mrs. Bernardino, Clerk of Court, MTC, Cardona, Rizal and Mrs. San Juan, Clerk of Court, MCTC, Pililia-Jala-Jala, Rizal failed to observe the circulars issued by the Supreme Court and the Office of the Court Administrator in connection with their duties and responsibilities as Accountable Officers.[9]
. . . The actual collection of fees and the recording of transactions were being performed by Mrs. Ma. Luisa Tuazon Ira, Clerk III, in the Office of the Clerk of Court of that Court. In view of the unavailability of required documents which were not presented to date, and the proximity of the submission of our audit report, stated hereunder is our partial findings. Amount of shortages maybe reduced upon presentation of vital records like validated deposit slips/official receipts.In a Memorandum dated 26 September 1997, Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño recommended that the report of Justice Felipe B. Kalalo dated 09 August 1996, and the reports of Maria Clara L. Guzman and Leandro L. Villanueva dated 20 February 1996[11] and 08 April 1997 regarding the audits they conducted on the MTC, Cardona, Rizal, MCTC, Pililia-Jala-Jala, Rizal, and RTC, Binangonan, Rizal, be considered the administrative complaints against Ermelina C. Bernardino, Libertad San Juan, Atty. Manuel I. Banting and Ma. Luisa Tuazon, and that they be required to submit their comments thereon within ten (10) days from receipt of the order.[12]
A. JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND
Audit period covers February, 1985 to December, 1996, or a period of eleven years and ten months. For nine years and nine months or up to October, 1994, all collections were remitted and accounted for. The depository bank up to March, 1994 was the PNB, Ortigas Branch. For the period April, 1994 to October, 1994, it was the PNB, Cainta Branch. Effective January, 1996, the depository bank was the Land Bank of the Philippines. The cash books showed no collections nor remittances for the months of November and December, 1994. Beginning January, 1995 to December, 1996, the remittances became irregular resulting to an under remittance of P106,311.68. Any shortage that may be incurred for the months of November and December, 1994 cannot be determined in the absence of collections and deposits entries in the cashbooks. No reports were neither submitted to the Accounting Division of the Supreme Court for recording.
B. FIDUCIARY FUND
Audit period for this Fund covers February, 1984 to December, 1995 only. While the cut-off date should have been December, 1996 like the other funds, no office file records for collections, deposits and withdrawals were presented for the whole year of 1996. The audit was based on file copies of monthly reports because no cashbooks were maintained. Monthly reports for submission to Accounting Division were prepared based on the duplicate copies of official receipts instead of entries from the cashbooks. Based on available documents, the balance of Fiduciary Fund as of December, 1995 should be P990,451.80. However, considering that no cashbooks were maintained where the running balance of the fiduciary fund is reflected at the beginning and ending of each monthly transactions, the said balance of P990,451.80 has nothing to be compared with. Likewise no passbook was given us where all the deposits and withdrawals are shown and is one of the basis for determining the balance of deposits as of a certain date.
C. CLERK OF COURT GENERAL AND
D. SHERIFF’S GENERAL FUND
Collections for these two funds started January, 1984. The audit examination covered twelve years or up to December, 1996. Remittances of collections up to December, 1993 were found to be in order. Irregular remittances were committed beginning the years 1994, 1995 and 1996. Tentative unremitted collection for Clerk of Court General Fund is P99,314.93, while that of the Sheriff’s General Fund is P46,038.97. Subject amounts may likewise be adjusted upon presentation of receipts and other proofs of remittances or payments.
Accordingly, Atty. Banting, Clerk of Court, RTC Binangonan, Rizal should be made to explain and account for his shortages as follows:
1. Judiciary Development Fund . . . . . . . . P 106,311.682. Fiduciary Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 990,451.803. Clerk of Court, General Fund . . . . . . . 99,314.934. Sheriff’s General Fund . . . . . . . . . . . .
46,038.97
TOTAL . . . . . .
P1,242,117.38
(1) the Audit Report dated February 20, 1997 of the Fiscal Audit Division with respect to the MTC, Cardona, Rizal and the MCTC, Pililia-Jala-Jala, Rizal and the RTC, Binangonan Rizal, . . . be noted;On 12 December 1997, respondent Banting[16] filed his Comment while respondents San Juan[17] and Bernardino[18] filed their respective Comments on 16 December 1997.
(2) the Reports dated August 9, 1996 and August 14, 1996 of Justice Felipe B. Kalalo and the Audit Report dated February 20, 1997 and April 8, 1997 of the Fiscal Audit Division, Office of the Court Administrator shall be treated as administrative complaints against Mrs. Ermelina C. Bernardino, Clerk of Court, MTC, Cardona, Rizal, Mrs. Libertad San Juan, Clerk of Court, MCTC, Pililia-Jala-Jala, Rizal, Atty. Manuel I. Banting, Clerk of Court, RTC, Binangonan, Rizal, and Ma. Luisa Tuazon, clerk, RTC, Binangonan, Rizal for which reason all said respondents are required to submit their comments thereon within ten days from receipt of this order; . . . .[15]
1. Libertad San Juan’s Accountability:On 11 April 2000, the Court noted the Memorandum dated 08 February 2000 and incorporated the same with the case. It required respondent San Juan to manifest in writing if she is willing to submit her case for resolution based on the pleadings filed.[26]
- Judiciary Development Fund and Clerk of Court General Fund
An audit examination of these funds for the period September 1996 to January 1997 shows them to be in order. Collections were deposited/remitted to their respective account in the authorized depository bank.
- Clerk of Court Fiduciary Fund
It seems that Ms. San Juan was not alarmed with the result of the first audit conducted in August 1996 on her Fiduciary Fund account. Our examination of the cashbook and other pertinent records for the period September 1996 to January 1997 and after the suspension of Ms. San Juan disclosed the following irregularities:
1.) There was an unauthorized opening of new bank account in the Ventures Rural Bank (now AMA Rural Bank) of Mandaluyong, Inc. on September 25, 1996 in the name of MCTC, Pililia, Rizal with Ms. San Juan as the sole signatory of the said account. (Bank passbook and Cert. attached as Annex C)
2.) Juggling of collections using two bank accounts.
3.) There were unauthorized withdrawals of deposits, no proof of court order.
4.) There were encashment of personal checks.
All the above-mentioned irregularities are violations of Circular 50-95 issued by the Office of the Court Administrator.
Moreover, Ms. San Juan did not turn-over all the accountable documents upon her suspension either to Judge R. Santos, Judge designate of MCTC, Pililia, Rizal or Mr. Casas, designated Officer-in-Charge of the same court.
Bank records showed that Ms. San Juan juggled the collections by making deposits and unauthorized withdrawals between the existing Land Bank account and the newly opened Ventures Rural Bank account. From September 1996 to January 1997, collections for this period were deposited in the Ventures Rural Bank while withdrawals were reflected/withdrawn in the Land Bank account. It was also found out that Ms. San Juan was the co-signatory of Judge Remedido Santos[25] in the withdrawal slip from February 1997 to February 1998 when in fact Ms. San Juan should no longer be the collecting officer because of her preventive suspension. It should have been Mr. Casas the designated Officer-in-Charge.
Ms. San Juan was able to transact two unauthorized withdrawals: 1.) she withdrew P100,000.00 under LBP account on January 10, 1997. The withdrawal slip bears the signature of Judge Santos as co-signatory. Said amount (P100,000.00) was transferred/deposited under the Ventures Rural Bank account on the same date. On September 1, 1998 [twenty (20) months after her suspension] she withdrew again the amount of P219,802.00 from the Ventures Rural Bank. Both withdrawals do not appear to have been properly authorized by the Court.
Anticipating financial audit when the judicial audit team conducted an inventory of cases in MCTC, Pililia, Rizal, Ms. San Juan even got a copy of fictitious passbook (copy attached as Annex D) from a close friend in the Ventures Rural Bank wherein entries were altered and the unauthorized withdrawals were not reflected. This fictitious passbook was likewise submitted by Mr. Casas when he submitted all the requirements for audit.
On September 29, 1998, Ms. San Juan deposited the amount of P30,000 by cash and P182,802.00 by check deposit but unfortunately the check she deposited was returned by the bank on October 2, 1998 for lack of funds. It was only after a year when she made a full restitution of the remaining balance of P219,802.00. She made a cash deposit on September 23, 1999 amounting to P184,439.14 and P271.50 on September 27, 1999. From September 25, 1996 to September 27, 1999, entries in the VRB passbook disclosed several unauthorized check deposits and unidentified withdrawals.
. . .
From the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that:
1,) This report be incorporated with A.M. No. P-97-1258 and Ms. Libertad San Juan be DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to reappointment to any position in the government for misappropriating public funds for her own personal benefit.
Respondent Bernardino explains that right from the start when courts were authorized to collect JDF fees, she has been reporting and remitting their collections, either by mail or by sending postal money order. However, since there were delays in their receipt of the return cards accompanying the reports and remittances sent by them, she deemed it proper to submit her reports and remit her collections personally to the Supreme Court as there was no PNB Branch in their locality. Moreover, she admits that when Justice Kalalo conducted his audit, she has not reported nor remitted the JDF collections for the period January, 1995 to July, 1996. Respondent asserts that it was not her intention “not to report nor remit and keep to herself her collections but it was due to her work load” and that “the demands of her position became so enormous” that she ended up failing to submit the reports and remit her collections.After reviewing the reports of the Audit Teams, the Court adopts the findings of the OCA and agrees in its recommendations.
Respondent expresses her gratitude to Justice Kalalo for conducting the audit because according to her, were it not for the said audit, she would not have realized that she has been “complacent and sitting” on her job as an accountable officer for so long.
Respondent stresses that while it is true that the audit team found them to have essentially failed to have observed the circulars issued by the Court relative to her duties and responsibilities as an accountable officer when she remitted directly to the Supreme Court, she did the same in all honesty and good faith. In addition, she claims that her collection (sic) were all accounted for. Finally, respondent implores that she be exonerated of the charges against her.
In his comment dated 11 December 1997, respondent Atty. Manuel I. Banting declares that as Clerk of Court of RTC, Binangonan, Rizal, he has remitted all their collections while complying with Supreme Court regulations and circulars until 1995. He discloses that it was only in the years 1995 and 1996 when irregularities in the reports with the corresponding collection remittances occurred. Respondent Banting attributes several reasons therefor. According to him, during these periods several incidents took place which affected his performance as well as of Cash Clerk Maria Luisa Tuazon who is also his co-respondent in the instant case.
He narrates that in 1994, they thought all the while that respondent Tuazon, a law graduate was preparing to take the Bar examination, for which reason she was irregularly reporting to office. However, instead of taking the Bar respondent Tuazon got married and bore two children, a girl delivered in 1994 and a boy, in 1996. In addition, in the latter part of 1994, RTC Binangonan transferred to its new Hall of Justice. As a consequence thereof, office files and records were hurriedly transferred to the new building. Respondent Banting admits that many of their files were “either dislocated (sic), rendered missing or completely lost.” Moreover, he discloses that he was under suspension for a period of ninety (90) days from 5 October 1994 to 5 January 1995, without an officer-in-charge being designated to take over his place. Thus, when he reported back in January 1995 he learned that the collections for November to December 1994 have been converted into pay checks when employees encashed their salaries with Cash Clerk Maria Luisa Tuazon.
Respondent Banting asserts that he repeatedly demanded from respondent Tuazon the remaining funds of the court in her possession but the latter denied the existence of any such money. He (Banting) alleges that through stealth and malicious maneuvering, respondent Tuazon was able to conceal court funds in her possession. In fact, Tuazon has a passbook under her name where she deposits the court’s collection.
Respondent Banting stresses that he had exercised due care and diligence when he designated Gemma Abasolo as a replacement for Tuazon on July 9, 1994. However, he explains that he could not be faulted as he could not act on matters he has no knowledge of. Further, he claims that essential records pertaining to court collections were treacherously kept by Tuazon. He accuses Tuazon of being blatantly insensible by presenting to the Supreme Court auditor a passbook with fiduciary funds deposited under her name. In addition, he raises the possibility that Tuazon, after destroying documents which might incriminate her and her friends, had left the country.
Likewise, respondent Banting avers that Tuazon admitted to having invested money using court funds and in an attempt to settle her accountabilities, she offered real properties of her brother to be mortgaged in order to raise money.
Respondent Banting acknowledges that the difference between the amount collected and those that were remitted may not be so large had the reports been completed by Tuazon.
In closing, respondent Banting stresses that he did not participate in the irregular acts complained of. He maintains that said acts were perpetuated by Cash Clerk Tuazon. Thus, he prays that his indefinite suspension be lifted, and that he be reinstated into office with backwages.
Respondent Ma. Luisa Tuazon never submitted her comment inspite of a show-cause resolution of this Court dated 30 June 1998. Incidentally, the Court by a resolution dated 17 November 1998 required the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Binangonan to ascertain the complete and present address of respondent Tuazon and submit the same to the Court.
We first discuss the liability of respondent Bernardino.
In her comment, Respondent Bernardino admitted that for over a year and a half she failed to submit the report and remit the corresponding collection for JDF. She attributes her failure to do this important duty to being enormously loaded with work by acting as a stenographer aside from being a clerk of court. She relates that in the past years they have consistently submitted JDF monthly reports as well as regularly remitted JDF collections. It was only when there were delays in their receipt of the return cards of their reports that she deemed it wise to personally file with the Supreme Court the reports. Moreover, she candidly admits being “complacent and sitting” on her job as an accountable officer for so long. And although she likewise admits to have “essentially failed” in observing the governing circulars relative to JDF collections, she claims that she did so in all honesty and good faith.
Clearly, respondent Bernardino conveniently forgot that as a Clerk of Court, she is an important officer of the judiciary. It is incumbent upon her to see to it that there is an orderly and efficient management of her office, including the submission of reports pertaining to JDF collections and the remittance of said collections. Moreover, she had been remiss for failing to comply with Supreme Court circulars particularly Administrative Circular No. 3-90 in relation to Circular 13-92 dated 1 March 1992 and Circular No. 8-A-93 dated 12 April 1993 relative to the Judiciary Development Fund. As a Clerk of Court, she is the overall custodian of court records. Her admitted failure to file reports and remit collections for over a year and a half raises the presumption that she misused the court’s fund for her personal gain. The only defense she raised is that she was enormously loaded with work, in her very words, “natabunan ng trabaho.” This defense will not exonerate her from the charges of grave misconduct and act prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The defense raised in fact underscored the truth that respondent was unable to efficiently and effectively meet the demands of her office.
As this Court has repeatedly said, the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility (Callejo, Jr. vs. Garcia, 206 SCRA 491). It cannot be denied that as Clerk of Court, respondent’s administrative functions are just as vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice. Thus, we cannot write off the fact that respondent Bernardino had been remiss in her duties for failing to remit JDF collections for over a year and a half. As an accountable officer she cannot profess ignorance of Supreme Court circulars relative to JDF collections. Clearly, the actuation of respondent warrants the stiff penalty of dismissal from the service. As ruled by this Court, misconduct in office warranting removal must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of official duties [Betguen vs. Masangcay, 283 SCRA 475]
We now discuss the liability of respondent Banting.
As for respondent Banting, his lengthy ratiocinations, such as the incidents concerning the person of respondent Tuazon which, according to him was the reason why their court collections and reports were not submitted; that RTC Binangonan transferred to a new Hall of Justice; that he designated a new OIC in place of Tuazon; that he had been preventively suspended for three months, thus, he was not aware of the goings-on in their office; that prior to 1995 and 1996 no such irregularities in the court collections took place; and his attestation that he never participated in the irregular acts of Tuazon, all taken together just bring to fore the fact that as a Clerk of Court, an accountable officer, he miserably failed to live up to his bounden duty.
As this Court has ruled, the Clerk of Court has general supervision over all personnel of his court including its cashier and disbursement officer and is guilty of neglect of duty when he fails to exercise due diligence in the supervision of subordinate employees, such as the collecting officer, in the instant case, respondent Tuazon, [In re: Priscilla Hernandez of RTC, Tangub City, Misamis Occidental, 239 SCRA 350]
With respect to respondent Tuazon, this Office would like to inform this Court that in a letter dated 18 August 1998 of Julieta R. Salamat, Officer-in-Charge of RTC, Binangonan, Rizal, she related that Ma. Luisa Tuazon is in the United States. Thus, Tuazon could comply with the resolution of this court dated 18 November 1997 requiring her to comment. Again, in a letter dated 24 December 1998, OIC Salamat stated that notwithstanding earnest efforts exerted by them, their Office was not able and could not determine the true and actual whereabouts of respondent Ma. Luisa Tuazon. Information from Tuazon’s immediate family members are inconclusive as she has allegedly not communicated with them.
In view of the fact that respondent Tuazon failed to comply with the resolution of this Court dated 18 November 1997 requiring her to comment as well as to answer the show cause resolution issued by this Court on 30 June 1998, the undersigned is of the opinion that the requirements of substantial due process have been satisfactorily met. Moreover, as this Court has ruled, silence is admission if there was chance to deny, especially if it constitutes one of the principal charges against her (PEREZ vs. SULLER, A.M.-MTJ-94-936, Nov. 6, 1995). Besides, assuming without admitting that she (Tuazon) did take flight and left the country, we can conclude that this is a clear indication of guilt.
Time and again, this Court has consistently and unceasingly reminded everyone that all persons working in the judiciary are tasked with a heavy burden of responsibility. Their conduct must at all times be characterized by propriety and decorum, and above all beyond suspicion. As such they must be the epitome of integrity, competence, probity and honesty. Respondents Bernardino, Banting and Tuazon, failed and refused to appreciate the wisdom of this reminder. Thus, this Office is constrained to recommend their dismissal from the service.
. . .
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing the undersigned respectfully recommends that respondents Mrs. Ermelina C. Bernardino, Clerk of Court of the MTC of Cardona, Rizal; Atty. Manuel I. Banting, Clerk of Court of the RTC of Binangonan, Rizal; and Maria Luisa Tuazon, Cash Clerk, RTC, Binangonan, Rizal, be DISMISSED from the service for gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct prejudicial to the best interests of the service, with the forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporation.
. . . The preventive suspension imposed on her and the administrative investigation being conducted against her should have taught her a lesson, and should have been enough reason for her to absolutely refrain from doing any irregularity in the performance of her duty. However, this Office discovered other anomalous transactions committed by Ms. San Juan when she was supposed to be serving her preventive suspension. This act of Ms. San Juan is not only contemptuous (for defying direct orders from the High Court) but also an indication of the propensity of Ms. San Juan to misappropriate and malverse government funds at all cost. The non-designation of OIC to take her place, the urging of her officemates and her seeming concern to party litigants can never be a valid ground to take it upon herself to lift the preventive suspension imposed on her by the High Court. Neither will it entitle her to effect the withdrawals of cashbonds, even if it contains the signature of the presiding judge.
Then, too, the deposit of the judiciary fund at Ventures Bank instead of at the Land Bank, further aggravates her liability. She even admitted that the deposit in Ventures Bank was intended for security of her loan and loans of other court personnel. This is a clear case of misappropriation. Replenishment of the amount is not a defense in malversation.
It is too late for Ms. San Juan to invoke the compassion and understanding of this Court. The circumstances that transpired indicates (sic) that Ms. San Juan was not fazed with the result of the first audit conducted in August 1996 on her Fiduciary Fund Account. Not even the suspension order and pending administrative investigation relative to the said August 1996 audit deterred her from doing the same illegal acts. . . .[43]