

|
|
|
|
|
Republic of the
Philippines
JOSEPH ANGELES, Complainant, A.M.
P-03-1670
-versus-
January 22, 2003 chan
robles virtual law library
D E C I S I O N chan robles virtual law library chan robles virtual law library PANGANIBAN,
J.:
chan
robles
virtual law library
chan robles virtual law library A public office is
a public trust. The law requires all public officials, especially those
involved in the administration of justice, to embody at all times the
values
of integrity and discipline.
The Case and the Facts chan
robles virtual law library
The material averments of the Complaint are summarized by the Office of the Court of Administrator (OCA) in this wise: chan robles virtual law library "Complainant is the
plaintiff (complaining witness) in Criminal Case No. 8270 before MTC,
Brooke’s
Point, Palawan presided by Judge Fernando R. Gomez Jr. Said criminal
case
was dismissed on July 23, 1998 for lack of interest to prosecute x x x.
The cash bonds posted by the accused was ordered cancelled and returned
to the bondsman but the accused, by way of special power of attorney,
authorized
or constituted complainant to receive said cash bond from respondent
Base.
In her Answer[3] dated March 17, 1999, respondent averred that complainant had already received the full amount of P3,000 on July 16, 1998, the day the amount was withdrawn from the Land Bank of the Philippines. She presented as proof his signature at the back of the withdrawal slip.[4] chan robles virtual law library In a Report dated May 11, 2000,[5] the OCA recommended that the matter be referred to the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Puerto Princesa, Palawan, for a formal investigation. chan robles virtual law library Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Judge chan robles virtual law library In her May 28, 2002[6] Report and Recommendation,[7] the investigating judge, Nelia Yap Fernandez, found respondent guilty of malicious non-feasance in office. She explained as follows: chan robles virtual law library "The evidence disclosed that the amount of P3,000.00 never reached its intended receiver. The evidence of the respondent which is the withdrawal slip does not show how much amount was given to the complainant as it is only the signature of said complainant which appeared therein. As stated by the complainant he affixed his signature at the back of the withdrawal slip but upon counting the money it was short of P1,000.00. He returned the P2,000.00 to the respondent who advised him to come back the following morning. There was no evidence showing that the complainant had actually received or was given by respondent the amount of P3,000.00. The explanation given by [r]espondent that she was unable to prepare any acknowledgement receipt because she was called by the Judge after the [c]omplainant had received the money is too flimsy."[8] chan robles virtual law library She added that complainant would not waste his time, money and effort to complain about a small amount of money, if he had indeed received it. Thus, she concluded that respondent had misappropriated the cash bond for the latter’s own use. chan robles virtual law library Judge Fernandez recommended that respondent be reprimanded and ordered to pay complainant the amount representing the cash bond supposedly released to the latter. The judge warned that a repetition of the same or a similar offense would be dealt with more severely. chan robles virtual law library The Court’s Ruling chan robles virtual law library We agree with the investigating judge, but modify the penalty consistent with Civil Service Rules and current jurisprudence on the subject. chan robles virtual law library Administrative Liability of Respondent chan robles virtual law library The administration of justice is a sacred task. It demands that all officials and employees involved in the dispensation of justice embody the values of integrity and discipline at all times. This high standard of judicial service echoes the principle enshrined in the Constitution that a public office is a public trust. Hence, all public 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.[9] chan robles virtual law library Verily, this Court condemns and would never countenance any conduct, act or omission that would violate this norm of public accountability; or diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.[10] chan robles virtual law library Clerks of court perform delicate administrative functions essential to the prompt and proper administration of justice. They keep the records and seal; issue processes; enter judgments and orders; and give (upon request) certified copies of any paper, record, order, judgment, or entry found in the records.[11] They are also the designated custodians of the court’s funds and revenues, records, property and premises.[12] As such, they are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of the said funds and property.[13] chan robles virtual law library In the present case, we find respondent remiss in her duty as custodian of the court’s funds. Her own testimony reveals that she was negligent in releasing the cash bond under her safekeeping. chan robles virtual law library First, she arranged
for the withdrawal of the cash bond even without the court’s Order
dismissing
the case and canceling the bond. Claiming good faith, she explained
that
she had prepared the withdrawal slips based on that Order which Judge
Gomez
had given in open court a day before the bond was withdrawn.
Second, before releasing
the money, respondent did not require complainant to show a special
power
of attorney to receive the cash bond on behalf of the bondsmen.
Elementary
is the rule that a cancelled bond may be returned only to the bondsman
or a duly authorized representative. Respondent should have ensured
that
complainant had the necessary document authorizing him to receive the
cash
bond on behalf of the bondsmen regardless of their intention to give
the
amount to him as settlement of their case. chan
robles virtual law library
Respondent, as clerk of court, is expected to be a role model[16] for the other court employees -- to be emulated in the performance of her duties as well as in her conduct and behavior as a civil servant.[17] She cannot afford to err without affecting the integrity of the court or the efficient administration of justice. chan robles virtual law library We agree with the recommendation of the investigating judge that respondent be administratively sanctioned for nonfeasance or neglect of duty. However, the recommended penalty of reprimand is too light. Her failure to observe due diligence in her duty as custodian of the court’s funds constitutes neglect of duty which, under the Civil Service Law and Omnibus Rules implementing the same,[18] is a less grave offense penalized with suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. As this appears to be the first infraction of respondent, we find her suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay to be a sufficient penalty for her offense. chan robles virtual law library Furthermore, to prevent any undue adverse effect on the public service which would ensue should work be left unattended by reason of respondent’s suspension, we deem it wise to convert her penalty to the payment of a fine. Thus, in line with jurisprudence,[19] we impose a fine instead of a suspension, so that she can continue to discharge her assigned tasks. chan robles virtual law library WHEREFORE, Remedios C. Base, clerk of court of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Brooke’s Point, Palawan, is found guilty of simple neglect of duty and a FINE equivalent to her one-month salary is hereby imposed on her, with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar act shall be dealt with more severely. She is further ordered to PAY P1,000 to Joseph Angeles representing the balance of the cash due him. chan robles virtual law library SO ORDERED. chan robles virtual law library Puno, J., (Chairman),
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur. chan
robles virtual law library
Endnotes: [1] Dated September 11, 1998; rollo, pp. 1-4. chan robles virtual law library[2] OCA Report, p. 1; rollo, p. 15. chan robles virtual law library [3] Rollo, pp. 7-10. chan robles virtual law library [4] Annex B-1, respondent’s Answer; rollo, p.10. chan robles virtual law library [5] Rollo, pp. 15-16. chan robles virtual law library [6] Id., pp. 302-311. chan robles virtual law library [7] The case was deemed submitted for decision on July 31, 2002, per Resolution of the Third Division of the Supreme Court. [8] Judge Fernandez’s Report and Recommendation, p. 9; rollo, p. 310.chan robles virtual law library [9] §1, Article XI, Constitution. chan robles virtual law library [10] Bandong v. Ching, 261 SCRA 10, August 23, 1996; citing Sy v. Academia, 198 SCRA 705, 717, July 3, 1991. chan robles virtual law library [11] Angeles v. Bantug, 209 SCRA 413, May 29, 1992. chan robles virtual law library [12] Manual for Clerks of Court, Section B, Chapter I. chan robles virtual law library [13] OCA v. Orbigo-Marcelo, AM No. P-00-1415-MeTC, August 30, 2001. chan robles virtual law library [14] Anonymous v. Geverola, 279 SCRA 279, September 18, 1997. chan robles virtual law library [15] Solidbank Corporation v. Capoon Jr., 289 SCRA 9, April 15, 1998. chan robles virtual law library [16] Paa v. Remigio, 88 SCRA 593, February 28, 1979. chan robles virtual law library [17] Mallare v. Ferry, AM Nos. P-00-1381 and P-00-1382, July 31, 2001. chan robles virtual law library [18] Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, §52, b(1). chan robles virtual law library [19] See Aquino v. Lavadia, AM No. P-01-1483, September 20, 2001; Amane v. Mendoza-Arce, 318 SCRA 465, November 19, 1999. chan robles virtual law library |
|
Search the Chan Robles Virtual Law Library The Home of the Philippine On-Line Legal Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
|