496 Phil. 843
PER CURIAM:
1) | JDF | P 3,371.00 |
2) | General Fund | 2,576.00 |
3) | Fiduciary Fund | 255,115.38 |
Total | P261,062.38 |
“The function of being the custodian of the court’s funds and revenues, records, properties and premises devolves upon respondent. She was tasked to use the funds under her official custody in a judicious manner. Being a mere office-in-charge in no way ebbed the degree of care respondent should exercise in performing her functions. Section 7, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court requires that ‘the clerk shall safely keep all records, papers, files exhibits and public property committed to his charge.’ Thus, as custodian of the court’s funds, respondent had no justification whatsoever for leaving the duty of collecting and issuing receipts for legal fees to other court personnel. The collection of legal fees, by its nature, is a delicate function of clerks of court as judicial officers entrusted with the correct and effective implementation of the regulation thereon.Respondent, through a letter dated January 26, 2005, informed this Court that she is forwarding a postal money order in the amount of P1,000.00 as fine in compliance with our Resolution dated December 14, 2004. She likewise requested a copy of our Resolution dated January 28, 2003 directing her to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for her failure to file a comment. She prayed that she be given sufficient time to file such comment.
Under no circumstances can the grant of loans from the court’s collections be justified. It was a clear case of an accountable officer consenting to the improper or unauthorized use of public funds by other persons, which is punishable by law. x x x
Respondent’s continued refusal to heed the numerous directives from the Court aggravated her legal responsibility. From 1998 to present, she ignored no less than six directives from the Court for her to explain and give her side. This continued defiance amounts to an evasion of the investigation process, clearly indicative of her guilt. Her refusal to face head-on the charges against her is contrary to the principle in criminal law that the first impulse of an innocent man when accused of wrongdoing is to express his innocence at the first opportune time (Report on the Financial Conducted at the Municipal Trial Courts of Bani, Alaminos, and Lingayen, Pangasinan, A.M. No. 01-2-18-MTC, 5 December 2003). Her lack of respect for and recognition of the Court’s authority, which is an essential and implicit element in an effective and credible judicial system, is contemptible.
Verily, respondent’s grave misdemeanors justify her severance from the service. Section 56 (a) of CSC Resolution No. 99-1936 dated 31 August 1999 provides that the penalty of dismissal shall result in the permanent separation of the respondent from the service, with or without prejudice to criminal or civil liability, and under Section 58 (a) of the same resolution, it shall carry with it that of cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and the perpetual disqualification for reemployment in the government service, unless otherwise provided in the decision.
In view of the foregoing, respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court are our recommendations that:
- Respondent Sylvia R. Yan, Stenographic Reporter and Former OIC, MTC, Brooke’s Point, Palawan be DISMISSED from the service for gross misconduct, dishonesty and misappropriation of public funds, with forfeiture of all withheld salaries, allowances and benefits, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality in the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations;
- Respondent Sylvia R. Yan be DIRECTED to restitute the amount of Two Hundred Sixty One Thousand and Sixty-Two Pesos and Thirty-Eight Centavos (P261,062.38) representing the shortages in the following: JDF – P3,371.00; General Fund – P2,576.00; and Fiduciary Fund – P255,115.38;
- The Employees Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services – OCA, be DIRECTED to compute the balance of the respondent’s earned leave credits and forward the same to the Finance Division, Fiscal Management Office – OCA, which shall compute the money value of the same, the amount, as well as other benefits the respondent may be entitled to, to be included as restitution of the computed shortages; and,
- The Legal Office be AUTHORIZED to file criminal charges against respondent before the appropriate court.”
“3. 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 for said Fund.”In Office of the Court Administrator vs. Fortaleza,[3] we emphasized the role of the Clerks of Court with regard to the collection of legal fees, thus:
Section 4, Circular No. 50-95, states:
“4. All collections from bailbonds, rental deposits, and other fiduciary collections shall be deposited within twenty-four (24) hours by the Clerk of Court concerned, upon receipt thereof, with the Land Bank of the Philippines.”
Corollarily, we have held that Clerks of Court are the custodian of the court’s funds and revenues, records, property and premises. Thus, they are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of said funds and property. They 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.[2]
“x x x Clerks of Court are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts; 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 court’s 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.”As an OIC or Acting Clerk of Court, respondent is duty-bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in the performance of her officially designated duties.[4] She is an accountable officer entrusted with the great responsibility of collecting money belonging to the funds of the Court. This she failed to fulfill. She admitted that she personally used the Fiduciary Fund; and lent the amounts she collected to her co-workers. That she incurred shortages in her collections obviously show that she appropriated the amounts for herself. Those are government funds. She had no right to use them or lend them to others.
“Section 52. Classification of Offenses. — Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.Corollarily, in Re: Ma. Corazon M. Molo,[9] we held:A. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties:
- Dishonesty — 1st Offense — Dismissal
- Gross Neglect of Duty — 1st Offense — Dismissal
- Grave Misconduct — 1st Offense — Dismissal”
“No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from the occupant than the judicial office. Those connected with the dispensation of justice bear a heavy burden of responsibility. Clerks of court, in particular, must be individuals of competence, honesty and probity, charged as they are with safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings. This Court has consistently held that persons involved in the administration of justice ought to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the public service. The conduct required of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach.WHEREFORE, respondent Sylvia R. Yan is declared guilty of dishonesty and gross misconduct and is hereby DISMISSED from the service. She is ordered to restitute to this Court the sum of P261,062.38. All her withheld salaries, leave credits, allowances and benefits are ordered forfeited, the same to be applied to her accountabilities, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality in the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.
The Court is left with no choice but to declare the respondent guilty of dishonesty and gross misconduct. Dishonesty alone, being in the nature of a grave offense, carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and perpetual disqualification for re-employment in the government service. This penalty is in accordance with Section 52 and Section 58, Rule IV, of the Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 (Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service).”