THIRD DIVISION
A.M. No. SCC-15-21-P (Formerly A.M. No. 15-01-01-SCC), December 09, 2020
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ANINDING M. ALAUYA, CLERK OF COURT II, SHARI'A CIRCUIT COURT, MOLUNDO-MAGUING-RAMAINBUADIPOSO-BUBONG, MOLUNDO, LANAO DEL SUR, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDO, J.:
This administrative matter stemmed from a financial audit report1 of the Financial Audit Team, Fiscal Monitoring Division, Court Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), on the books of accounts of Aninding M. Alauya (respondent), Clerk of Court II, Shari'a Circuit Court (SCC), Molundo-Maguing-Ramain-Buadiposo-Bubong, Lanao del Sur, for the period from January 1, 2008 to February 28, 2014.
Factual Antecedents:
In the December 15, 2014 Memorandum2 for the Court Administrator, the audit team submitted its observations, findings, and recommendation to preventively suspend respondent without pay and to submit his written explanation for the imputed offenses, to wit:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
3.a. Removal of office records, financial and case records, from the office and keeping them in their residence;The OCA, in its December 15, 2014 Memorandum,4 adopted the recommendations of the audit team and endorsed the same for approval of the Court. We approved the recommendations of the OCA in Our February 23, 2015 Resolution.5
3.b. Failure to transfer some of the court case records in the office premises despite the audit team's instructions and the memorandum, from the presiding judge;
3.c Skipping the four (4) [pages of Official Receipts] ORs with serial numbers 11772062 to 11772065 and 11772161 to 11772164 for [Judiciary Development Fund] JDF and [Special Allowance for Judiciary Fund] SAJF, respectively;
3.d. Detaching the three (3) copies (original, duplicate and triplicate) of OR No. 11772165 and the unused original copy of OR No. 11772166 from the booklet;
3.e. Failure to report and remit the collections under OR No. 11772066 and 11772165 in the amount of P180.00 and P820.00, respectively, both dated 4 April 2012;
3.f. Antedating OR Nos. 11772210 and 11772211 for 19 March 2010 and 28 June 2013, respectively, when in fact said series of ORs were previously found unissued as of 4 March 2014, to make it appear that the LRF collections [were] properly receipted;
3.g. Non-submission of Monthly Financial Reports.3
Report and Recommendation of the OCA: |
First, respondent could not make up his mind with respect to the charge that he removed office, financial and case records, from the office and kept them in his residence. He initially offered a mere denial but thereafter gave a qualified admission that the bringing of case records to his home was with the consent of Judge Saumay. He again gave another reason in his letter dated 10 September 2015 stating that he took the case records home because there was no electric power at that time in Molundo, Lanao del Sur where his office is stationed and he used his computer at his home in Marawi City to encode the orders. This reason appears to be a mere afterthought and puts into question respondent's credibility.In view of the foregoing findings, the OCA, in its July 5, 2016 Memorandum, submitted the following recommendations to the Court:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Second, respondent explained that he avoided commenting on the memorandum issued to him by Judge Saumay as required by the audit team because he did not want to have any conflict with Judge Saumay. Further, instead of directly answering the allegation, he cited as an excuse the fact that he wrote the majority of the orders of Judge Saumay per instruction of Judge Saumay. Such failure to comment and his silence on the allegations are detrimental to his cause.
It is the natural instinct of man to resist an unfounded claim or imputation and defend himself. It is totally against our human nature to just remain reticent and say nothing in the face of false accusations, Hence, silence in such cases is almost always construed as an implied admission of the truth thereof.
Third, while respondent admitted that he brought home some of the records albeit with the consent of Judge Saumay, he however did not present any court order to support his claim. This is contrary to Section 14 of Rule 136 of the Ru1es of Court mandating that "(n)o record shall be taken from the clerk's office without an order of the court except as otherwise provided by these rules. xxx."
Fourth, respondent raised the defense that it was a personnel of the court who was responsible for the skipping of four (4) [pages] of official receipts for the JDF and SAJF, and the removal of three (3) copies (original, duplicate and triplicate) of O.R. No. 11772165 and the unused original copy of O.R. No. 11772166.
The finger-pointing deserves scant consideration. For one, respondent did not even name the personnel who was responsible. Secondly, as clerk of court, he is designated as the custodian of the court's funds and revenues, records, properties and premises, and shall be liable for any loss or shortage thereof. Finally, and more importantly, as clerk of court, he is chiefly responsible for the shortcomings of his subordinates to whom administrative functions normally pertaining to them are delegated. Thus, respondent cannot exculpate himself from the anomalies by just passing the blame to another employee.
Fifth, with respect to the unremitted collections, a perusal of Annex "C" of respondent's comment will reveal that the report was dated May 11, 2012 while the SAJF and JDF deposit slips were both dated April 5, 2012. Based on these documents, the April 4, 2012 collections amounting to P180.00 and P820.00 under O.R. Nos. 11772666 and 11772165, respectively, were remitted and reported on April 5, 2012 and May 11, 2012, respectively. However, the April 2012 monthly report of JDF and SAJF presented by respondent during the conduct of the audit showed no such transactions. The finding is supported by the JDF and SAJF subsidiary ledgers of the Accounting Division, FMO, OCA, which bear no collection and deposit in the said month. The said ledgers also indicate that the aforesaid transactions were reported only in 2015. Likewise, the date in the machine validation in the JDF and SAJF deposit slips is March 5, 2014 and not April 5, 2012. This gives rise to the conclusion that respondent falsified the date in the deposit slips to make it appear that the collections were remitted and reported in 2012.
Sixth, respondent's admission of antedating the official receipts constitutes dishonesty defined as the "(d)isposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud deceive or betray.
Finally, with respect to his non-submission of the monthly financial report, respondent's justification i.e., the low caseload of his court, is patently without merit as paragraph 3 of OCA Circular No. 112-2004 categorically mandates:
3. In case no transaction is made within the month, written notice thereof shall be submitted to the aforesaid Office no later than the 10th day of the succeeding month.
x x x
In the present case, dismissal from the service may be too harsh considering the following circumstances, to wit: (1) this is respondent's first infraction after nineteen (19) years of service in the judiciary; and (2) he remitted, albeit belatedly, the total amount of his shortages before the complaint against him was filed. xxx25 (Emphases in the original)
1. respondent Aninding Alauya, Clerk of Court II, SCC, MolundoMaguing-Ramain-Buadiposo-Bubong, Molundo, Lanao del Sur, be found GUILTY of gross neglect of duty, dishonesty and grave misconduct; andMeanwhile, this Court received respondent's Letters dated April 19, 201627 and February 2, 201728 relative to the instant administrative case against him. The Court also received a copy of a letter-complaint dated September 1, 2016 against respondent from various court personnel29 from SCC Molondo, Lanao del Sur.
2. respondent Alauya be SUSPENDED for one (1) year without pay with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely.26
November 17, 2017 Memorandum: |
The allegations deserve scant consideration.The OCA also noted that the September 1, 2016 complaint-letter against respondent raised matters which were wholly unrelated to the instant administrative case and that the charges raised therein be resolved in a separate administrative case against respondent for Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best interest of the Service, and Grave Misconduct.
First, while respondent harmonized his two (2) conflicting reasons in bringing home the case records, i.e., to help write lacking orders on motions filed and on interlocutory matters, because of the inability of their Presiding Judge to write in the English language and due to the lack then of electric power in their office, the fact remains that there was no court order to support his claim contrary to Section 14 of Rule 136 of the Rules of Court.
Second, with respect to his argument that had he known earlier of the scheduled audit, he would have delivered the case records to the office at least a day before, the same is untenable as it is respondent's duty to return the records to the court especially so in the instant case where there was no authority in writing for respondent to do so.
Third, respondent also tries to explain his failure to name the personnel by stating that he took responsibility for the negligence of his personnel and because he actually ratified the said act. However, while respondent as clerk of court is chiefly responsible for the lapses of his subordinates to whom administrative functions normally pertaining to them are delegated, he should still have named the alleged employee to give his allegations a semblance of truth.
Finally, with respect to respondent's other allegations, it appears that he ascribes ill motive on the part of the audit team, but he has not presented any evidence to prove his claim. As stated in the previous memorandum, in the absence of evidence ascribing any ill motive on the part of the audit team, it logically follows that there was no such improper motive and that, corollarily, their report is worthy of full faith and belief.
Thus, this Office does not find anything in respondent's letters that would warrant the modification of our recommendation in our Memorandum dated 08 July 2016 that respondent to be found guilty of gross neglect of duty, dishonesty and grave misconduct and consequently be suspended for one (1) year without pay with a stem warning that a repetition of the same or similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely.31
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 4-12.
2 Id. at 10.
3 Id.
4 Id. at 1-3.
5 Id. at 46-49.
6 Id. at 50-55.
7 Id. at 114-119.
8 Id. at 124-127.
9 Id. at 145-149.
10 Id. at 50-55.
11 Id. at 50.
12 Id. at 52-53.
13 Id. at 52.
14 Id. at 53.
15 Id. at 54.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 114-119.
20 Id. at 124-127.
21 Id. at 145-149.
22 Id. at 129-130.
23 Id. at 132-143.
24 Id. at 143.
25 Id. at 138-142.
26 Id.
27 Id. at 145-149.
28 Id. at 166-175.
29 Id. at 153. The complainants are the following: Judge Abdulhalim L. Saumay, Interpreter Saripasa D. Ditucalan, Clerk II Rolando P. Mangantang, Stenographer Soraya E. Marohombsar, Clerk of Court Abdulcader A. Gamor, Interpreter Farina M. Alauya, Judge Samanodin L. Ampaso, and Judge Abuali P. Cali.
30 Id. at 202-206.
31 Id.
32 Id. at 206.
33Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted at the Municipal Trial Court, Baliuag, Bulacan, 753 Phil. 31, 37 (2015).
34 Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code states: ARTICLE 226. Removal, Concealment or Destruction of Documents. - Any public officer who shall remove, destroy or conceal documents or papers officially entrusted to him, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever serious damage shall have been caused thereby to a third party or to the public interest.
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos, whenever the damage caused to a third party or to the public interest shall not have been serious.
In either case, the additional penalty of temporary special disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification shall be imposed.
35 Re: Administrative Matter No. 05-8-244-MTC, Los Baños, Laguna, 569 Phil. 333, 345 (2008).
36Office of the Court Administrator v. Bantiyan, 811 Phil. 644, 657 (2017).
37Office of the Court Administrator v. Fontanilla, 695 Phil. 142, 148-149 (2012).
38 Entitled "COURT FIDUCIARY FUNDS" (November 1, 1995), pertinent portions of which provide:
(4) All collections from bailbonds, rental deposits, and other fiduciary collections shall be deposited within twenty[-]four (24) hours by the Clerk of [C]ourt concerned, upon receipt thereof, with the Land Bank of the Philippines [LBP].
x x x
(9) Within two (2) weeks after the end of each quarter, all Clerks of Court are hereby required to submit to the Chief Accountant of the Supreme Court, copy furnished the Office of the Court Administrator, a quarterly report indicating the outstanding balance maintained with the depositary bank or local treasurer, and the date, nature and amount of all deposits and withdrawals made within such period.
x x x
39 OCA Circular No. 113-2004 provides:
1. The Monthly Reports of Collections and Deposits for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF), Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) and Fiduciary Fund (FF) shall be:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryxxxx40 Entitled "GUIDELINES IN THE ALLOCATION OF THE LEGAL FEES COLLECTED UNDER RULE 141 OF THE RULES OF COURT, AS AMENDED, BETWEEN THE SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR THE JUDICIARY FUND AND THE JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND" (August 12, 2004), pertinent portions of which provide:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
1.3. Sent not later than the 10th day of each succeeding month to [The Chief Accountant, Accounting Division, Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court of the Philippines, Taft Avenue, Ermita, Manila]
x x x
Henceforth, all Clerks of Court shall only submit monthly reports for the three (3) funds, namely: JDF, SAJ, and FF.PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES41Office of the Court Administrator v. Fontanilla, supra note 37.
I. Judiciary Development Fund
x x x
3. Systems and Procedures. -
x x x
c) In the RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC, SDC and SCC. - The daily collections for the Fund in these courts shall be deposited everyday with the nearest LBP branch in the savings account opened by said courts for the account of the Judiciary Development Fund. xxx.
x x x
II. Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund
x x x
3) Systems and Procedures:
x x x
c) In the RTC, MeTC, MTCC, MTC, MCTC, SDC and SCC. - The daily collections for the special allowance for the judiciary fund in these courts shall be deposited everyday with the nearest lbp branch in the savings account opened by the court for the account of the SAJ. xxx.
x x x
See also Office of the Court Administrator v. Viesca, 758 Phil. 16 (2015).
42Office of the Court Administrator v. Melchor, Jr., 741 Phil. 433 (2014).
43Office of the Court Administrator v. Bantiyan, supra, note 36 at 656.
44 Paragraph 3 of OCA Circular No. 112-2004.
45Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted at the Municipal Trial Court, Baliuag, Bulacan, supra, note 33.
46 See Section 46 of the RRACCS. See also Office of the Court Administrator v. Viesca, supra, note 40.cralawredlibrary