THIRD DIVISION
JOSEPH ANGELES,
Complainant,
A.M.
P-03-1670
January 22, 2003
-versus-
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
REMEDIOS C. BASE,
CLERK OF COURT II,
MTC, BROOKE'S POINT,
PALAWAN,
Respondent.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D E C I S I O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PANGANIBAN,
J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This administrative
case stems from a sworn Letter-Complaint[1]
filed by Joseph Angeles, charging Remedios C. Base, clerk of court II
of
the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Brooke’s Point, Palawan, with gross
misconduct.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The material averments
of the Complaint are summarized by the Office of the Court of
Administrator
(OCA) in this wise:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"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.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
He alleges that
respondent
Base, with unjustifiable reason, failed to release the cash bond to him
despite several demands. Finally, respondent informed him that she
would
release the amount of P3,000 to him if he would sign a receipt of
payment.
He did sign the receipt but respondent failed to release the amount for
which she signed because respondent gave him only the amount of P2,000.
He alleges that to this time respondent failed and still fails to give
the balance of P1,000."[2]
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withdrawn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]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Report and Recommendation
of the Investigating Judgechanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"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]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court’s Rulingchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the investigating
judge, but modify the penalty consistent with Civil Service Rules and
current
jurisprudence on the subject.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Administrative Liability
of Respondent chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The good faith asserted
by respondent is untenable. If, indeed, there was an urgent need to
release
the money, she could have easily asked for the early preparation of the
judgment dismissing the criminal case and the corresponding order to
release
the cash bond.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Third, respondent
failed
to issue the necessary acknowledgment receipt upon release of the
amount.
The signature of complainant at the back of the withdrawal slip was
presented
as proof of payment. However, as correctly observed by the
investigating
judge, it was not an acknowledgment of the amount he had actually
received.
Unacceptable is the excuse of respondent that she was not able to issue
the proper receipt because Judge Gomez had called her inside his office.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent must bear
in mind that as custodian of the court’s funds and property, she is
liable
for whatever loss or damage may result from her own act or omission.
The
mandatory nature of this duty is designed to promote full
accountability
for government funds. Respondent did not observe due diligence in her
duty.
She failed to show sufficient proof of payment of the cash bond and
must
therefore take full responsibility for the unaccounted money.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We emphasize that a
clerk of court must be an individual of competence, honesty and
integrity.
The prestige of the office entails the corresponding responsibility to
safeguard its integrity and proceedings, to earn respect therefor, and
to uphold the confidence of the public in the administration of justice.[14]
Verily, the conduct of a clerk of court at all times must not only be
characterized
by propriety and decorum, but must also be above suspicion.[15]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Dated September 11, 1998; rollo, pp. 1-4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
OCA Report, p. 1; rollo, p. 15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Rollo, pp. 7-10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Annex B-1, respondent’s Answer; rollo, p.10.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Rollo, pp. 15-16.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., pp. 302-311.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
§1, Article XI, Constitution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Bandong v. Ching, 261 SCRA 10, August 23, 1996; citing Sy v. Academia,
198 SCRA 705, 717, July 3, 1991.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Angeles v. Bantug, 209 SCRA 413, May 29, 1992.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Manual for Clerks of Court, Section B, Chapter I.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
OCA v. Orbigo-Marcelo, AM No. P-00-1415-MeTC, August 30, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Anonymous v. Geverola, 279 SCRA 279, September 18, 1997.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Solidbank Corporation v. Capoon Jr., 289 SCRA 9, April 15, 1998.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Paa v. Remigio, 88 SCRA 593, February 28, 1979.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Mallare v. Ferry, AM Nos. P-00-1381 and P-00-1382, July 31, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, §52,
b(1).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
See Aquino v. Lavadia, AM No. P-01-1483, September 20, 2001; Amane v.
Mendoza-Arce,
318 SCRA 465, November 19, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |