EN BANC
IN
RE: DELAYED REMITTANCE OF COLLECTIONS OF TERESITA LYDIA R ODTUHAN,
OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 117, PASAY CITY.chanrobles virtual law library
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A.M.
No.
02-10-598-RTC
February 11, 2003 chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
R E S O L U T I
O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PANGANIBAN,
J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Employees and officials
involved in the administration of justice should always conduct
themselves
in an honorable manner. Unreasonable delay in the remittance of
fiduciary
collections constitutes grave misconduct that warrants sanction from
this
Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Casechanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Before us is an administrative
case that arose from the July 19, 2001 Memorandum[1]
issued by Atty. Dolores D. Rillera, branch clerk of court of the
Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 117, Pasay City, charging Teresita Lydia R.
Odtuhan
with delay in the remittance of her fund collection to the Land Bank of
the Philippines, in violation of Circular No. 50-95.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Factschanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 22, 1998,
Presiding Judge Henrick F. Gingoyon of the RTC, Branch 117, Pasay City,
issued an Order to sell by public auction all the properties that were
the subject of Special Proceedings No. 98-4297 entitled "In the Matter
of Petition for Voluntary Insolvency of Heraldina C. Lee, doing
business
under the name and style of HCL Collection." By December 1998, the
series
of sales summed up to P12,705.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On January 1, 1999,
Odtuhan, who was officer-in-charge (OIC) of the Office of the Branch
Clerk
of Court, took custody of the collection. Because she had not
accomplished
the required deposit form, she failed to deposit the fiduciary funds
with
the Land Bank of the Philippines, the authorized bank.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As a result, Dolores
P. Rillera, branch clerk of court, RTC, Pasay City, issued a Memorandum[2]
dated July 19, 2001, requiring Odtuhan to explain why no administrative
and criminal charges should be filed against the latter for failure to
deposit the fiduciary collection within 24 hours from receipt thereof.
Her failure to do so was a violation of Circular No. 50-95 dated
October
11, 1995.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In her August 3, 2001
letter,[3]
Odtuhan explained the reason for the delay. She said that, as
instructed
by the former OIC of the Office of the Branch Clerk of Court, she
waited
to collect other receivables until she took a leave of absence for the
2000 bar examinations. She added that although the collection had
always
been in her possession, she had no intention to keep it for herself and
would gladly turn it over immediately.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After more than eight
months, her immediate remittance of the collection was again demanded
in
a letter[4]
dated April 17, 2002, sent by Pepito S. Celestino, Clerk of Court VI of
the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Pasay City. Upon receipt of this
letter, she finally remitted the full amount.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thereafter, in a Memorandum[5]
dated May 2, 2002, Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock
directed
Odtuhan to explain why no administrative sanction should be imposed
upon
her for her long delay in turning over the collection. In her June 25,
2002 letter,[6]
she explained that on March 4 & 11, 2002, she had been diagnosed
with
ovarian cancer, for which she began undergoing treatment starting April
2002. Furthermore, she was allegedly having a difficult relationship
with
her presiding judge, who had charged her with accumulating millions of
pesos at his expense.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Report and Recommendation
of the Court Administratorchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In its August 26, 2002
Report,[7]
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Odtuhan remiss in her
duty of promptly remitting the P12,705 collection to the proper
custodian,
in violation of Circular No. 50-95. She remitted the amount only after
a lapse of about three years from the date of collection and only after
several demands or directives from the clerks of court and from the
OCA.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Her reasons for the
delayed remittance were found to be unsatisfactory. Accordingly, the
OCA
recommended that she suffer the penalty of one-month suspension without
pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar
act
in the future would be dealt with more severely.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This Court’s Rulingchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the OCA’s
findings but modify the penalty, consistent with jurisprudence. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Administrative Liability
of Respondentchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Time and time again,
we have stressed that the behavior of all employees and officials
involved
in the administration of justice, from the judge to the most junior
clerk,
is circumscribed with a heavy responsibility.[9]
Their conduct must be guided by strict propriety and decorum at all
times,
in order to merit and maintain the public’s respect for and trust in
the
judiciary.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The failure of Odtuhan
to remit her collection within 24 hours from receipt thereof was
unjustifiable.
In her August 3, 2001 reply[11]
to Atty. Rillera’s letter, she admitted that she had kept the
collection
inadvertently. She added that she had no intention of keeping it for
herself
and was ready to remit it immediately. Yet, after taking custody of the
collection on January 1, 1999, she let more than three years elapse
before
finally remitting it, and only after she had received two Notices[12]
from the clerks of court of the RTC of Pasay City.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thereafter, in a Memorandum[13]
dated May 2, 2002, the OCA ordered her to explain why no administrative
sanctions should be imposed upon her. In her Reply[14]
dated June 25, 2002, she averred that she failed to remit the
collection
within the deadline, because she was suffering from cancer and was
having
a difficult relationship with her presiding judge.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We find her explanation
inadequate and inconsistent, because it contradicted her earlier
inaction.
Though we empathize with her battle with cancer, we cannot ignore her
culpable
act, which was unrelated to her illness.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Paragraph B (4) of Circular
No. 50-95 provides that collections from bail bonds, rental deposits,
and
other fiduciary collections shall be deposited with the Land Bank of
the
Philippines by the clerk of court concerned, within 24 hours upon
receipt
thereof. We have held in Mallare v. Ferry[15]
that unjustifiable delay in remitting collections constitutes grave
misfeasance,
if not malversation of funds. Likewise, Lirios v. Oliveros[16]
and Re: Report on Audit and Physical Inventory of the Records of Cases
in MTC of Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija[17]
held that the unreasonable delay in the remittance of fiduciary funds
constituted
serious misconduct. "No protestation of good faith can override the
mandatory
nature of the circulars designed to promote full accountability for
government
funds."[18]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The failure of Odtuhan,
while acting as branch clerk of court, to remit her collection within
24
hours from receipt thereof constituted a serious breach of duty. Even
more
culpable was her failure to remit it immediately after receiving notice
of her infraction from the clerks of court of the RTC of Pasay City.
She
only remitted the collection after more than three years had elapsed
from
the supposed remittance date. In her desire to evade liability, she
offered
futile excuses that bore no relation to her misdeed. Her unreasonable
delay
in remitting fiduciary collection constituted serious misconduct, for
which
a penalty must be imposed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Re: Gener C. Endona,[19]
the Court found the respondent clerk of court remiss in the performance
of his duties. He deposited the collections for the month of June 1994
on August 1, 1994; and for the months of July and August 1994, on
September
16, 1994. The delays were deemed unreasonable and violative of
Administrative
Circular No. 5-93. He was ordered to pay a fine of P2,000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Lirios v. Oliveros,[20]
the Court held that a clerk of court’s unreasonable delay in turning
over
Judicial Development Fund (JDF) remittances amounted to grave
misfeasance,
if not malversation of funds. The clerk of court therein was also found
guilty of appropriating for himself the typewriter and the electric
fans
requisitioned from the Court, when he brought them home and kept them
there
for an unreasonable period of time. He was found guilty of grave
misconduct
and was fined P10,000.cralaw:red
For similar acts, the
Court has likewise imposed on several occasions the extreme penalty of
dismissal.[21]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For humanitarian reasons,
however, the Court has in the past mitigated the administrative
penalties
imposed upon erring judicial officers and employees. In the present
case,
dismissal from the service may be too harsh. In further consideration
of
the subsequent remittance by Odtuhan of the entire amount and her
affliction
with ovarian cancer, a fine would be in order.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, this Court
finds Teresita Lydia R. Odtuhan, court legal researcher of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 117, Pasay City, guilty of serious misconduct in
office
and imposes upon her a FINE of P10,000, with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition
of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., p. 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id., p. 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id., pp. 1-4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id., p. 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Caguioa v. Flora, 360 SCRA 12, June 28, 2001; In Re: Incident Report of
the Security Division, Supreme Court, on the Alleged Unlady-like Manner
of Ms Edna S. Cesar, RTC, Branch 171, Valenzuela City, AM No.
00-11-526-RTC,
September 16, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Rollo, p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
See the July 19, 2001 Memorandum and the April 17, 2002 Notice; id.,
pp.
10 and 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Id., p. 7.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id., p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
362 SCRA 19, July 31, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
253 SCRA 258, February 6, 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
319 SCRA 507, December 2, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Mallare v. Ferry, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
241 SCRA 237, February 13, 1995.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[21]
Mallare v. Ferry, supra; Re: Report on the Judicial and Financial Audit
of RTC-Br. 4, Panabo, Davao del Norte, 287 SCRA 510, March 13, 1998;
Re:
Report on Audit and Physical Inventory of the Records of Cases in MTC
of
Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |