1) Shortages in the SAJF collections in the total amount of P7,655.60 incurred between January 2005 and November 2005 due to the erroneous remittance of the collections to the FF account;
2) Shortages in the JDF collections in the total amount of £6,682.90 incurred between January 2005 and November 2005 due to the erroneous remittance of the collections to the FF account; and
3) Reported misappropriation of the exhibit money in Criminal Case No. 6553 (People of the Philippines v, Florecita Bucacao) in the amount of P41,000.00.
Ms. Almirante retained in her possession for a period from fifteen (15) days to eleven (11) months the court's cash collections. She admitted that she was not aware of the directive to promptly remit cash collections. Since she adduced no valid justification, this omission amounts to neglect of duty. Being the Officer-in-Charge, she is considered the custodian of court funds and revenues. For this reason, she should have been aware of her duty to immediately deposit the various funds she received to the authorized government depositories. Failure to fulfill this responsibility deserves administrative sanction. Not even the full payment of the shortages or the claim of ignorance of the applicable rule can exempt the accountable officer from liability.
The respondent's failure to regularly submit the corresponding reports on the collections and deposits of court funds/fees indicates her negligence. The regular submission of the monthly report on the collections of the court funds/fees is mandatory. Ms. Almirante's claim that she inadvertently lost the monthly reports in a taxi cannot justify her omission, the said assertion being clearly self-serving.
In the matter of the alleged misappropriation of the exhibit money in Criminal Case No. 6553, the evidence on record does not show adequately that there was unauthorized use of the exhibit money by the respondent, whether in whole or in part thereof. The entire amount was intact during the conduct of the cash count examination, and the same was already placed in the custody of the incumbent Clerk of Court.
Nonetheless, as indicated by the results of the judicial audit, Ms. Almirante has been remiss in the performance of her administrative responsibilities as then Officer-in-Charge of the MTC, Argao, Cebu. Her omissions partake of violations of specific rales and regulations governing the duties and responsibilities of Clerks of Court (or their authorized substitutes) in the collection and custody of legal funds/fees. Well-defined is the role of the Clerks of Court as judicial officers entrusted with the delicate function in the collection of legal fees, and they are expected to correctly and effectively implement regulations (Gutierrez v. Quitalig, 448 Phil 465, [2003], cited in Dela Pena v. Sia, A.M. No. P-06-2167, June 27, 2006). The same exacting standard should also be observed by those who, like the herein respondent, have been temporarily designated to discharge the functions of the Clerk of Court. Failure of Ms. Almirante to properly remit the court collections and regularly submit corresponding monthly reports transgressed the trust reposed in her as officer of the court.
In A.M. No. 01-4-119-MTC (Re: Financial Audit conducted on the books of accounts of Clerk of Court Pacita L. Sendin, MTC, Solano, Nueva Viscaya, January 16, 2002) the Clerk of Court concerned was directed by the Court to pay a fine of P5,000.00 for violating the circular issued by the court relative to the immediate remittance of court collections. Moreover, in Re: Gener C. Endoma (241 SCRA 237), the Court found the respondent Clerk of Court remiss in the performance of his duties when he deposited the collections for the month of June 1994 on 01 August 1994; and for the months of July and August 1994, on 16 September 1994. The delays were deemed unreasonable and violative of Administrative Circular No. 5-93. The Clerk of Court was ordered to pay a fine of P2,000.00.
Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the omissions of the respondent, as established, amount to simple neglect of duty warranting a penalty of suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offenders.
However, in the 07 March 2007 Resolution in A.M. No. 07-2-26-MTC, the Second Division of the Court ordered the dropping of Ms. Almirante from the rolls effective 01 December 2005, and her position had been declared vacant.
With this supervening circumstance, it would be impractical to impose upon her the penalty of suspension. A penalty in the form of a fine would be in order.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court the recommendation that Ms. Mira Thelma V. Almirante, Interpreter, Municipal Trial Court, Argao, Cebu be FOUND LIABLE for simple neglect of duty; and be FINED in the amount of Eight Thousand Pesos (P85000.0G). The said amount shall be deducted from any monetary benefits she may receive from the court as a result of her early separation from the service per A.M. No. 07-2-26-MTC.
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 12-13; letter dated April 20, 2006.
2 Id. at 4-11.
3 Id. at 5-7.
4 Id. at 20; audit report, Annex "F."
5 Id. at 21; audit report, Annex "G."
6 Id. at 24; audit report, Annex "J."
7 Id. at 26-28; dated February 12, 2007.
8 Id. at 29; Comment dated March 30, 2007.
9 Id. at 51-57.