Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > November 2008 Resolutions > [A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2637-P : November 24, 2008] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR [OCA] V. STANLEE D. CALMA, RTC, TAGAYTAY CITY, CAVITE, ORLANDO T. BACAY, JR. RTC, TOLEDO CITY, CEBU, AND VERONICA M. ORMITA, MTC, BANGAR, LA UNION :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 24 November 2008:

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2637-P (Office of the Court Administrator [OCA] v. Stanlee D. Calma, RTC, Tagaytay City, Cavite, Orlando T. Bacay, Jr. RTC, Toledo City, Cebu, and Veronica M. Ormita, MTC, Bangar, La Union)

Acting on a Memorandum dated April 10, 2007 of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) requesting that the salaries of respondents Stanlee D. Calma of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Tagaytay City, Cavite; Orlando T. Bacay, Jr. of the RTC in Toledo City, Cebu; and Veronica M. Ormita of the Municipal Trial Court in Bangar, La Union, be withheld and released only upon their submission of the required documents for their bonds as officers charged with the collection of funds, this Court, in a resolution issued on October 8, 2007, ordered that the OCA Memorandum be treated as an administrative complaint and the respondents be required to comment on it. According to the OCA, the three failed to submit the required documents for payment of their bonds despite being notified several times by the Finance Management Office (FMO) of the OCA. Section 101. of Presidential Decree No. 1445 and Sees. 66 and 182(a). Vol. I of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual provided that any omission of the said requirement constitutes neglect of duty and under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the same infraction constitutes a less grave offense punishable by suspension or dismissal from the service. We ordered the respondents to comment.

On November 22, 2007, the Court received the Comment of Stanlee D. Calma, explaining that his failure to submit the requirements was due to the heavy workload in the court he was recently assigned to and that even before he received a copy of the Court resolution, he had already submitted the required documents as confirmed by the letter of the Finance Division of the FMO-OCA informing him that his bond application had been approved effective June 6, 2007. He attached in his comment the letter from the Bureau of Treasury dated June 2007 to the Court Administrator that his bond had been approved. He apologized for the late submission of his requirements and promised not to repeat his infraction.

We received the comment of Veronica M. Ormita on November 28. 2007. She explained that she submitted a duly accomplished application form for renewal of bond with the required documents to the Finance Division of the FMO-OCA sometime in February 2007 and despite her having done so, the FMO still reminded her to submit an application for renewal of her bond. Immediately thereafter, she re-submitted the requirements and was informed later by the FMO that her bond renewal was approved effective June 6, 2007 to June 8, 2008, as evidenced by the Bureau of Treasury letter to the OCA. She said she did not reply to the OCA memorandum because she had already submitted a second application. She was surprised to receive the Court resolution again on November 20. 2007. She asked that the Court reconsider and revoke the resolution treating the Memorandum dated October 8, 2007 as an administrative complaint against her.

The Court received the Comment of Orlando T. Bacay, Jr. on November 28, 2007. He stated that he had already complied with and submitted all the necessary requirements for the renewal of his bond as early as May 22, 2007 and in fact, the Finance Division of the FMO-OCA had informed him in a letter dated September 17, 2007 that his bond application had been renewed by the Bureau of Treasury effective August 14, 2007 up to August 13, 2008. He attached a copy of the FMO-OCA letter and the Bureau of Treasury approval.

Considering that apparently respondents Calma, Ormita, and Bacay, Jr. had long submitted the requirements for the bond renewal applications before the issuance of the Court's resolution of October 8, 2007 and their respective bond renewals were already approved by the Bureau of Treasury before our Resolution of October 8, 2007, our order to treat the OCA Memorandum as an administrative complaint against the respondents had become moot.

WHEREFORE,the Resolution dated October 8, 2007, ordering the administrative complaint against Stanlee D. Calma, Orlando T. Bacay, Jr., and Veronica M. Ormita, is hereby REVOKED.

SO ORDERED.