EN BANC
RE: REPORT
ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE CASH
AND
ACCOUNTS OF
THE CLERKS OF COURT OF THE
RTC AND
THE MTC
OF VIGAN, ILOCOS SUR.chanrobles virtual law library
A.M.
No.
01-1-13-RTC
April 1, 2003
R
E S O L U
T I O N
AZCUNA,
J.:cralaw:red
On September 22, 1999,
an anonymous letter was filed before the Office of the Court
Administrator
charging Atty. Florante R. Rigunay, Clerk of Court of the Regional
Trial
Court of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, of misappropriating the court’s collections
for his personal use. Due to the seriousness of the allegation,
an
audit team was immediately directed to conduct an examination of the
cash
and accounts of the Regional Trial Court and Municipal Trial Court of
Vigan,
Ilocos Sur.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The audit team found
that Atty. Rigunay had a total collection of P1,332,121.04 for the
Judiciary
Development Fund covering the period from March 1985 to October 22,
1999,
but he failed to remit the sum of P516,578.45. Moreover, Atty.
Rigunay
did not remit his total collection for the Sheriff General
Fund
in the amount of P18,976.35. The audit team observed that some
collections
were not immediately deposited as required by court circulars.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Acting on the findings
of the audit team, the Office of the Court Administrator directed Atty.
Rigunay to restitute the shortages in the Judiciary Development Fund
and
the Sheriff General Fund in the total sum of P535,554.80. Said Office
caused
the salary and allowances of Atty. Rigunay to be withheld effective
February
2000.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On November 9, 2000,
Atty. Alex Requeño, OIC-Clerk of Court of the Regional
Trial
Court, Vigan, Ilocos Sur, forwarded to the Office of the Court
Administrator
two LBP-Vigan Branch deposit slips dated October 9, 2000 which covered
the amounts of P516,578.50 and P18,976.50 for the Judiciary Development
Fund and Sheriff General Fund Accounts, respectively. Said
deposit
slips evidenced the remittances effected by Atty. Rigunay for the full
payment of his shortages.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 18, 2001,
Atty. Rigunay tendered his irrevocable resignation as Clerk of Court VI
in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Vigan, Ilocos Sur, which
was accepted by the Court on March 22, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 11, 2001,
the Court required Atty. Rigunay to comment on the Report on the
Examination
of the Cash and Accounts of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
Court
and Municipal Trial Court of Vigan, Ilocos Sur.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his
letter-explanation,
Atty. Rigunay admitted that he misappropriated the unremitted judiciary
funds. He explained that he was forced to do so due to personal
problems:
a daughter’s operation for breast carcinoma, a son’s hospitalization, a
fire that gutted his installment-paid house and a failed business
venture.
Atty. Rigunay prayed for the Court’s compassion and clemency in
resolving
his case.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court finds the
explanation unsatisfactory.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Appellant’s personal
problems cannot justify his act of using the judiciary funds in his
custody.
In Office of the Court Administrator v. Galo,[1]
the Court held:
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We have said time and
again that those involved in the administration of justice from the
highest
official to the lowest clerk must live up to the strictest standards of
honesty and integrity in the public service bearing in mind that the
image
of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official
or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat. More
particularly,
we have repeatedly warned Clerks of Court, being next in rank to judges
in courts of justice, that dishonesty, particularly that amounting to
malversation
of public funds, will not be countenanced as they definitely reduce the
image of courts of justice to mere havens of thievery and
corruption.
Hence, as custodian of court funds and revenues, Clerks of Court 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. For those who have fallen short
of
their accountabilities, we have not hesitated to impose the ultimate
penalty.
This Court had never and will never tolerate nor condone any conduct
which
would violate the norms of public accountability, and diminish, or even
tend to diminish, the faith of the people in the justice system.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The fact that Atty.
Rigunay fully paid his shortages does not free him from the
consequences
of his wrongdoing. The act of misappropriating judiciary funds
constitutes
dishonesty and grave misconduct which are grave offenses[2]
punished by dismissal.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Although Atty. Rigunay
resigned on March 22, 2001, the Court is not divested of its
supervisory
power to discipline errant officials and personnel of the judiciary.
Atty.
Rigunay’s act of misappropriating judiciary funds for his personal use
warrants forfeiture of his retirement benefits with prejudice to
reappointment.[3]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Nevertheless, Atty.
Rigunay is entitled to receive terminal leave benefits under Section
65,
Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order
No.
292 and other pertinent Civil Service Laws.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, Atty.
Florante
R. Rigunay is hereby found GUILTY of DISHONESTY and GRAVE MISCONDUCT,
and,
accordingly, his retirement benefits are hereby ordered forfeited in
favor
of the government, excluding accrued leave credits. Moreover,
Atty.
Rigunay is declared disqualified from re-employment in the government
or
in any government-owned or controlled corporation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago,
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales,
and
Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
314 SCRA 705, 711-712 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service
(Resolution No. 99-1936, which took effect on September 27, 1999), Sec.
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The
following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Dishonesty
- 1st offense - Dismissalchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Gross
Neglect of Duty - 1st offense - Dismissalchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Grave
Misconduct - 1st offense--Dismissalchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Office of the Court Administrator v. Galo, see note 1,
supra,
at 712-713.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |