OCA IPI No. 10-3423-P, August 22, 2017 - JUDGE RAMON V. EFONDO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF GOA, CAMARINES SUR, Complainant, v. EDEN D. FAVORITO, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, GOA, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.; A.M. No. P-11-2889 [FORMERLY OCA IPI No. 10-10-117-MTC FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MTC OF GOA, CAMARINES SUR] - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. EDEN D. FAVORITO, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, GOA, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.
OCA IPI No. 10-3423-P, August 22, 2017 - JUDGE RAMON V. EFONDO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF GOA, CAMARINES SUR, Complainant, v. EDEN D. FAVORITO, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, GOA, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.; A.M. No. P-11-2889 [FORMERLY OCA IPI No. 10-10-117-MTC FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MTC OF GOA, CAMARINES SUR] - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. EDEN D. FAVORITO, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, GOA, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.
EN BANC
OCA IPI No. 10-3423-P, August 22, 2017
JUDGE RAMON V. EFONDO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF GOA, CAMARINES SUR, Complainant, v. EDEN D. FAVORITO, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, GOA, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.
A.M. No. P-11-2889 [FORMERLY OCA IPI No. 10-10-117-MTC FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MTC OF GOA, CAMARINES SUR]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. EDEN D. FAVORITO, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, GOA, CAMARINES SUR, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:
These consolidated administrative matters stemmed from a Complaint1 dated June 15, 2010 filed by Judge Ramon Efondo (Judge Efondo) against respondent Eden D. Favorito, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Goa, Camarines Sur and from the Report2 dated October 6, 2010 on the initial financial audit conducted at the MTC in Goa, Camarines Sur on the financial records of the said MTC, specifically, on the books of accounts of respondent.
Factual Antecedents
In a Letter3 dated November 23, 2009, addressed to respondent, copy furnished Judge Efondo, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), through Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Jesus Edwin Villasor, called out respondent on her failure to submit the Monthly Reports of Collections, Deposits and Withdrawals as required under OCA Circular No. 113-2004 and failure to regularly remit the court's monthly collections, in violation of SC Circular No. 59-94. In the said letter, the OCA required respondent to show cause why the latter's salary should not be withheld for failure to comply with office rules and regulations on the submission of reports and remittance of collections.
In response to the OCA's letter, respondent admitted not only the said infractions but also that she misappropriated the court collections as she was in financial distress due to the death of her husband. Respondent apologized and promised to remit the said funds at the soonest possible time.4
Judge Efondo learned about this, which prompted him to request for an immediate audit of the court's financial records.5 Thus, sometime in April 2010, the audit team from the Fiscal Monitoring Division of the OCA conducted an initial audit of the financial records of the said court, covering the period from March 1, 2004 to April 6, 2010, and found a shortage of Php 210,109.30 from the court's funds, itemized in its report dated October 6, 2010. Aside from a detailed account of the shortages, the report also established that respondent falsified several official receipts (OR) and cashbooks by indicating a lesser amount in the triplicate copies of the ORs and cashbooks while indicating the actual amount paid in the original copies thereof.6 This report was considered as an administrative complaint against respondent docketed as A.M. No. P-11-2889 entitled OCA v. Eden D. Favorito, Clerk of Court II, MTC, Goa, Camarines Sur [Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-10-117-MTC].7
The OCA, in its Memorandum8 dated October 6, 2010, adopted the findings and recommendations of the audit team.
Acting thereupon, this Court issued a Resolution9 dated January 10, 2011, adopting the recommendations of the audit team, as approved by the COA, thus:
In her Comment11 dated August 19, 2010, respondent denied the accusation of insubordination and explained that her actions were due to her husband's death in 2004, which put her in financial distress as she has three children dependent on her. Respondent also asked for consideration for her to redeem herself and expressed her intention of settling the shortages as soon as possible.
Judge Efondo filed a Supplemental Complaine12 dated October 18, 2010 against respondent for Malversation thru Falsification of Public/Commercial Documents and prayed for the dismissal of the respondent from service.
In compliance with the January 10, 2011 Resolution of this Court above-cited, Judge Efondo submitted his Investigation Report13 dated April 14, 2011, citing discovery of additional irregularities in the issuance of ORs by respondent.
In her Comment14 to the Supplemental Complaint dateq February 9, 2011, respondent asked that she be given six months to restitute the shortages and expressed her apologies to the Court for her infractions. She also prayed that she be allowed to resign after she restituted the shortages as found by the audit team so as not to burden the Court with the conduct of further proceedings in the administrative case against her.
On August 24, 2011, this Court issued a Resolution15 consolidating the two administrative cases against respondent.
Upon receipt of Judge Efondo's Investigation Report, this Court issued a Resolution16 dated April 18, 2012, directing the OCA to constitute a financial audit team to: (a) conduct an audit covering respondent's remaining unaudited period of cash and account from April 7, 2010 to May 3, 2010; and (b) evaluate reported dubious transactions made by respondent involving issuance of ORs.
In compliance with the said resolution, a financial audit was conducted on the books of accounts of the subject MTC on July 10 to 13, 2012, covering the period of April 7, 2010 to June 30, 2012. The audit included the accountability period of Ms. Maria Luz Buendia (Buendia) from May 4, 2010 to June 30, 2012, Court Interpreter 1, who was designated as the collecting officer, vice respondent, effective May 4, 2010. The audit team found that Buendia incurred no shortage on all funds and regularly submitted to the Accounting Division, OCA, the required monthly reports on the court's financial records during her accountability period. On the other hand, it was found that the total shortages, of which respondent is accountable, amounted to Php 246,118, itemized in detail in the said report as follows:
The audit team, thus, recommended that respondent be found guilty of dishonesty and falsification of public documents and as such, be dismissed from service with forfeiture of all benefits, except her accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in government service, among others.18
In its Memorandum dated October 17, 2012, the OCA approved the findings and recommendations of the audit team.19
The Issue
Should the respondent be held administratively liable?
This Court's Ruling
There is no question as to the guilt of the respondent as, by her own admission, respondent failed to submit the required monthly reports as regards the court funds and, worse, she intentionally used the said funds to make ends meet for her family, alleging that she is going thro gh financial distress due to her husband's death.
The proffered justification for her infractions, however, fails to persuade this Court to exercise leniency and benevolence in resolving the instant administrative matter.
In almost all administrative cases, this Court has reminded everyone in the public service that public office is a public trust. No less than the fundamental law of the land requires that "[p]ublic 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."20 [N]o less can be expected from those involved in the administration of justice.21 Public servants are even mandated to uphold public interest over personal needs.22 Everyone, from the highest official to the lowest rank employee, must live up to the strictest norms of probity and integrity in the public service.23
Specifically in this case, the Clerk of Court is an important officer in our judicial system. The said office is the nucleus of all court activities, adjudicative and administrative. The administrative functions are as vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice as his judicial duties are.24 The Clerk of Court performs a very delicate function. He or she is the custodian of the court's funds and revenues, records, property and premises. Being the custodian thereof, the Clerk of Court is liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of said funds and property.25 Needless to say, thus, Clerks of Court should be steadfast in their duty to submit monthly reports on the court's finances pursuant to OCA Circular No. 50-9526 and 113-200427 and to immediately deposit the various funds received by them to the authorized government depositories.28
In this case, it is undisputed that respondent failed to perform her duties to submit the required monthly reports as regards the financial records of the court and to remit the court collections. Respondent also admitted to the fact that she used court funds for her personal needs. Worse, it was discovered that respondent also resorted to falsifying and/or tampering with court official receipts to financially gain from court collections.
Given the findings of the OCA audit team, as well as the findings of Judge Efondo in his investigation, coupled with respondent's admission of the infractions imputed against her, it is evident that respondent not only failed to perform the duties of her office but also failed to live up to the high ethical standards expected of court employees.
Delayed remittance of cash collections by Clerks of Court and failure to submit monthly reports thereon constitute gross neglect of duty.29 The act of misappropriating court funds, regardless of the purpose therefor, constitutes dishonesty, not only against the public, but against the Court as well, which conduct is definitely very unbecoming of a court personnel.30 Dishonesty is a serious offense which reflects on the person's character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys his honor, virtue, and integrity.31 Collectively, these acts constitute grave misconduct, which cannot be tolerated as it denigrates this institution's image and integrity.32 Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides that such grave offenses are punishable by dismissal from service.33
One final note: Every action, good or bad, has consequences. A man brings upon himself what his conduct deserves. That being said, while We commiserate with the plight of the respondent, being a single parent with three children dependent on her, We cannot simply disregard her misconduct. Even the restitution of the shortages will not obliterate her liability.34 For the same reason, We cannot just accept respondent's proposition to merely let her resign after restitution of the shortages as her actions warrant the exercise of this Court's disciplining power on court employees. In fact, with the said acts, respondent may even be adjudged to be criminally liable. Indeed, any conduct, act or omission on the part of those who violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary shall not be countenanced.35
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds respondent Eden D. Favorito, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court, Goa, Camarines Sur, GUILTY of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and gross neglect of duty and is hereby DISMISSED from the service with FORFEITURE of all retirement benefits, excluding accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
This Court further ORDERS as follows:
(1) The Financial Management Office (FMO), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) is DIRECTED to:
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, Martires, Tijam, Reyes, Jr., and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
Caguioa, J., on official leave.
In a Letter3 dated November 23, 2009, addressed to respondent, copy furnished Judge Efondo, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), through Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Jesus Edwin Villasor, called out respondent on her failure to submit the Monthly Reports of Collections, Deposits and Withdrawals as required under OCA Circular No. 113-2004 and failure to regularly remit the court's monthly collections, in violation of SC Circular No. 59-94. In the said letter, the OCA required respondent to show cause why the latter's salary should not be withheld for failure to comply with office rules and regulations on the submission of reports and remittance of collections.
In response to the OCA's letter, respondent admitted not only the said infractions but also that she misappropriated the court collections as she was in financial distress due to the death of her husband. Respondent apologized and promised to remit the said funds at the soonest possible time.4
Judge Efondo learned about this, which prompted him to request for an immediate audit of the court's financial records.5 Thus, sometime in April 2010, the audit team from the Fiscal Monitoring Division of the OCA conducted an initial audit of the financial records of the said court, covering the period from March 1, 2004 to April 6, 2010, and found a shortage of Php 210,109.30 from the court's funds, itemized in its report dated October 6, 2010. Aside from a detailed account of the shortages, the report also established that respondent falsified several official receipts (OR) and cashbooks by indicating a lesser amount in the triplicate copies of the ORs and cashbooks while indicating the actual amount paid in the original copies thereof.6 This report was considered as an administrative complaint against respondent docketed as A.M. No. P-11-2889 entitled OCA v. Eden D. Favorito, Clerk of Court II, MTC, Goa, Camarines Sur [Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-10-117-MTC].7
The OCA, in its Memorandum8 dated October 6, 2010, adopted the findings and recommendations of the audit team.
Acting thereupon, this Court issued a Resolution9 dated January 10, 2011, adopting the recommendations of the audit team, as approved by the COA, thus:
Acting on the audit report of the team which conducted a financial audit on the books of accounts of Mrs. Eden D. Favorito, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Goa, Camarines Sur, the Court resolves to:Meanwhile, on June 15, 2010, Judge Efondo filed an administrative complaint against respondent docketed as OCA IPI No. 10-3423-P for insubordination and dishonesty in relation to her infractions above-cited.10
Judiciary Development Fund Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund Mediation Fund Legal Research Fund Land Registration Authority Fund Fiduciary Fund Total
The Memorandum dated 06 October 2010 of the Office of the Court Administrator is NOTED.
In her Comment11 dated August 19, 2010, respondent denied the accusation of insubordination and explained that her actions were due to her husband's death in 2004, which put her in financial distress as she has three children dependent on her. Respondent also asked for consideration for her to redeem herself and expressed her intention of settling the shortages as soon as possible.
Judge Efondo filed a Supplemental Complaine12 dated October 18, 2010 against respondent for Malversation thru Falsification of Public/Commercial Documents and prayed for the dismissal of the respondent from service.
In compliance with the January 10, 2011 Resolution of this Court above-cited, Judge Efondo submitted his Investigation Report13 dated April 14, 2011, citing discovery of additional irregularities in the issuance of ORs by respondent.
In her Comment14 to the Supplemental Complaint dateq February 9, 2011, respondent asked that she be given six months to restitute the shortages and expressed her apologies to the Court for her infractions. She also prayed that she be allowed to resign after she restituted the shortages as found by the audit team so as not to burden the Court with the conduct of further proceedings in the administrative case against her.
On August 24, 2011, this Court issued a Resolution15 consolidating the two administrative cases against respondent.
Upon receipt of Judge Efondo's Investigation Report, this Court issued a Resolution16 dated April 18, 2012, directing the OCA to constitute a financial audit team to: (a) conduct an audit covering respondent's remaining unaudited period of cash and account from April 7, 2010 to May 3, 2010; and (b) evaluate reported dubious transactions made by respondent involving issuance of ORs.
In compliance with the said resolution, a financial audit was conducted on the books of accounts of the subject MTC on July 10 to 13, 2012, covering the period of April 7, 2010 to June 30, 2012. The audit included the accountability period of Ms. Maria Luz Buendia (Buendia) from May 4, 2010 to June 30, 2012, Court Interpreter 1, who was designated as the collecting officer, vice respondent, effective May 4, 2010. The audit team found that Buendia incurred no shortage on all funds and regularly submitted to the Accounting Division, OCA, the required monthly reports on the court's financial records during her accountability period. On the other hand, it was found that the total shortages, of which respondent is accountable, amounted to Php 246,118, itemized in detail in the said report as follows:
It was also established that several ORs issued by respondent were tampered with. These findings, according to the report, were in full accord with Judge Efondo's findings in his Investigative Report. Notably, respondent failed to restitute the shortages found in the initial audit within the period given to her by this Court.17
The audit team, thus, recommended that respondent be found guilty of dishonesty and falsification of public documents and as such, be dismissed from service with forfeiture of all benefits, except her accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in government service, among others.18
In its Memorandum dated October 17, 2012, the OCA approved the findings and recommendations of the audit team.19
Should the respondent be held administratively liable?
There is no question as to the guilt of the respondent as, by her own admission, respondent failed to submit the required monthly reports as regards the court funds and, worse, she intentionally used the said funds to make ends meet for her family, alleging that she is going thro gh financial distress due to her husband's death.
The proffered justification for her infractions, however, fails to persuade this Court to exercise leniency and benevolence in resolving the instant administrative matter.
In almost all administrative cases, this Court has reminded everyone in the public service that public office is a public trust. No less than the fundamental law of the land requires that "[p]ublic 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."20 [N]o less can be expected from those involved in the administration of justice.21 Public servants are even mandated to uphold public interest over personal needs.22 Everyone, from the highest official to the lowest rank employee, must live up to the strictest norms of probity and integrity in the public service.23
Specifically in this case, the Clerk of Court is an important officer in our judicial system. The said office is the nucleus of all court activities, adjudicative and administrative. The administrative functions are as vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice as his judicial duties are.24 The Clerk of Court performs a very delicate function. He or she is the custodian of the court's funds and revenues, records, property and premises. Being the custodian thereof, the Clerk of Court is liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of said funds and property.25 Needless to say, thus, Clerks of Court should be steadfast in their duty to submit monthly reports on the court's finances pursuant to OCA Circular No. 50-9526 and 113-200427 and to immediately deposit the various funds received by them to the authorized government depositories.28
In this case, it is undisputed that respondent failed to perform her duties to submit the required monthly reports as regards the financial records of the court and to remit the court collections. Respondent also admitted to the fact that she used court funds for her personal needs. Worse, it was discovered that respondent also resorted to falsifying and/or tampering with court official receipts to financially gain from court collections.
Given the findings of the OCA audit team, as well as the findings of Judge Efondo in his investigation, coupled with respondent's admission of the infractions imputed against her, it is evident that respondent not only failed to perform the duties of her office but also failed to live up to the high ethical standards expected of court employees.
Delayed remittance of cash collections by Clerks of Court and failure to submit monthly reports thereon constitute gross neglect of duty.29 The act of misappropriating court funds, regardless of the purpose therefor, constitutes dishonesty, not only against the public, but against the Court as well, which conduct is definitely very unbecoming of a court personnel.30 Dishonesty is a serious offense which reflects on the person's character and exposes the moral decay which virtually destroys his honor, virtue, and integrity.31 Collectively, these acts constitute grave misconduct, which cannot be tolerated as it denigrates this institution's image and integrity.32 Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides that such grave offenses are punishable by dismissal from service.33
One final note: Every action, good or bad, has consequences. A man brings upon himself what his conduct deserves. That being said, while We commiserate with the plight of the respondent, being a single parent with three children dependent on her, We cannot simply disregard her misconduct. Even the restitution of the shortages will not obliterate her liability.34 For the same reason, We cannot just accept respondent's proposition to merely let her resign after restitution of the shortages as her actions warrant the exercise of this Court's disciplining power on court employees. In fact, with the said acts, respondent may even be adjudged to be criminally liable. Indeed, any conduct, act or omission on the part of those who violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary shall not be countenanced.35
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds respondent Eden D. Favorito, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court, Goa, Camarines Sur, GUILTY of grave misconduct, dishonesty, and gross neglect of duty and is hereby DISMISSED from the service with FORFEITURE of all retirement benefits, excluding accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or agency of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
This Court further ORDERS as follows:
(1) The Financial Management Office (FMO), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) is DIRECTED to:
(a) PROCESS the money value of the terminal leave benefit of Eden D. Favorito, dispensing with the usual documentary requirements, and apply the same to the following shortages:(2) The Office of the Administrative Services, OCA is DIRECTED to provide the FMO, OCA of the following documents for the said Office to comply with Item No. 1 above:
Fiduciary Fund Judiciary Development Fund Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund Mediation Fund Legal Research Fund Land Registration Authority TOTAL SHORTAGES
and release the remaining amount, if any to Favorito, provided that the release of the said remaining amount shall be subjected to the usual clearances and other documentary requirements;
(b) COORDINATE with the Fiscal Monitoring Division (FMD), Court Management Office (CMO), OCA, before the release of the checks issued in favor of the Municipal Trial Court of Goa, Camarines Sur, for the preparation of the necessary communication with the incumbent Clerk of Court/Officer-in-Charge thereat; and
(c) DEPOSIT the checks issued to the corresponding bank account of the aforesaid funds and FURNISH the FMDCMO, OCA, of the machine-validated deposit slips so the said Office can finalize their audit on the books of accounts of Eden D. Favorito.
(a) Official Service Record;(3) The Legal Office, OCA, is DIRECTED to file the appropriate criminal charges against Eden D. Favorito.
(b) Certification of Leave Credits; and
(c) Notice of Salary Adjustment (NOSA) if any.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Jardeleza, Martires, Tijam, Reyes, Jr., and Gesmundo, JJ., concur.
Caguioa, J., on official leave.
Endnotes:
1Rollo (OCA IPI No. 10-3423-P), pp. 2-5.
2Rollo (A.M. No. P-11-2889), pp. 4-14.
3Rollo (OCA IPI No. 10-3423-P), p. 6.
4 Id. at 7.
5 Id. at 2.
6Rollo (A.M. No. P-11-2889), pp. 4-14.
7 Id. at 40-43.
8 Id. at 1-3.
9 Id. at 40-43.
10Rollo (OCA IPI No. 10-3423-P), pp. 2-5.
11 Id. at 27-28.
12 Id. at 29-32.
13Rollo (A.M. No. P-11-2889), pp. 44-52.
14Rollo (OCA IPI No. 10-3423-P), pp. 62-63.
15 Id. at 79-80.
16 Id. at 87-88.
17Rollo (A.M. No. P-11-2889), pp. 201-217.
18 Id. at 215.
19 Id. at 198-200.
20Dela Cueva v. Omaga, 637 Phil. 14, 21 (2010).
21OCA v. Puno, 587 Phil. 549, 555 (2008).
22 Id., citing The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides thus: Public officials and employees shall always uphold the public interest over and above personal interest. See Judge Dondiego v. Cuevas, Jr., 446 Phil. 514, 522 (2003); Marasigan v. Buena, 348 Phil. 1, 9 (1998).
23OCA v. Puno, supra note 21, at 555.
24OCA v. Banag, et al., 651 Phil. 308, 324 (2010).
25 Id. at 324.
26 Guidelines for the proper administration of court fiduciary funds approved on October 11, 1995.
27 Rules as regards the submission of monthly reports of collections and deposits approved on September 16, 2004.
28DCA v. Banag, et al., supra note 24, at 325.
29 Id. at 327.
30Villar v. Angeles, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court, Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija, 543 Phil. 135 (2006).
31 Id.
32DCA v. Acampado, 721 Phil. 12, 30 (2013).
33Duque III v. Veloso, 688 Phil. 318, 326 (2012).
34DCA v. Acampado, supra note 32, at 31.
35OCA v. Banag, et al., supra note 24, at 328.
