ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[A.M. No. P-01-1450.July 18, 2001]

MCTC EMPLOYEES OF CASIGURAN SORSOGON vs. JESUS MANSOR et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 18 2001.

A.M. No. P-01-1450(MCTC Employees of Casiguran, Sorsogon vs. Jesus O. Mansor, Clerk of Court, MCTC, Casiguran-Juban, Sorsogon.)

Before us is a letter-indorsement submitted by the Hon. Honesto A. Villamor, the Executive Judge of Branch 52 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon, Sorsogon regarding the complaint against Jesus O. Mansor, Clerk of Court of Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Casiguran-Juban, Sorsogon, and reporting on the result of the investigation he conducted on the disappearance of collections of the court amounting to Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Five Pesos (P18,835.00).

The pertinent facts are as follows:

On September 9, 1998, the Acting Presiding Judge of MCTC, Casiguran-Juban, Sorsogon, directed the respondent Jesus O. Mansor to open the safety vault where money and important pieces of evidence were being kept. The vault was opened by the utility worker upon the directive of the respondent who had possession of the key and who was the only person who knew the combination of the safety vault.

When the vault was opened, only the amount of a little more than Eight Hundred Pesos (P800.00) was found inside. The collections of the court amounting to approximately Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Five Pesos (P18,835.00) were nowhere to be found. When they asked the respondent what happened to the rest of the money, he admitted that Two Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Pesos (P2,570.00) was still in his possession after it was exchanged for demonetized coins. However, he denied having knowledge of the disappearance of the rest of the money and promised to reimburse the amount lost. Thereafter, respondent reported the loss to the Philippine National Police (PNP), Casiguran, Sorsogon. Then, on September 14, 1998, he went back to PNP-Casiguran, Sorsogon, to inform them that the vault where the money was placed was defective.

However, the MCTC employees of Casiguran, Sorsogon, contended that the vault was not defective. They requested for an investigation on the matter. Hence, the Court Administrator directed Judge Honesto A. Villamor to conduct the same.

The respondent submitted an Answer 1 Rollo. pp. 8-13.before the investigating judge stating that the complainants failed to take into consideration the following factors when they made their conclusions: (a) the defective cabinets, vault and dilapidated nature of the building, thus making it more prone to thievery; (b) the burning of one typewriter sometime in 1990; and (c) the accidental falling of one Bonifacio Grefaldeo for stepping on the worn-out wooden floor adjacent to the Court Chamber. He likewise assured the court that even if he would not be found responsible for the disappearance of the subject amount, he would still be willing to share in replenishing the amount under the principle of command responsibility.

The complainants then submitted a Comment 2 Rollo, pp. 17-19.wherein they averred that: First, although there are really cabinets and vaults in their office that can be considered defective, the safety vault where the money was kept and got lost is not one of them. Second, there is only a part of the Gabaldon building that can be considered really dilapidated - the portion of the said building where the Court is, cannot be considered as such. Even if they consider it dilapidated, they do not know of any act or occasion where burglary has ever been committed in their office. Third, the burning of one typewriter sometime in 1990 happened at noontime when all of the employees were out for lunch. According to the report, somebody had thrown firecrackers over the window where the typewriter was near and so it was burned. According to them, this is not thievery. Lastly, former employee Bonifacio Grefaldeo's accidental falling because he stepped on the worn-out wooden floor happened in the portion of the Gabaldon building which was once used by the Casiguran PNP personnel as kitchen/mess room. There is a very big room between the Court's Chamber and the said kitchen/mess room.

When the case was heard, respondent submitted a deposit slip amounting to Nineteen Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Eight Pesos (P19,868.00) in the name of the MCTC Casiguran-Juban Fiduciary Fund. In view thereof, complainants manifested their disinterest in pursuing the case further since their sole purpose in filing the complaint was to see to it that the amount lost is replaced. By reason of the foregoing manifestation, the investigating judge resolved to recommend the dismissal of the complaint even though he found respondent guilty of violating Circular No. 50-95 due to his failure to deposit the amounts collected within twenty-four (24) hours to the court's depositary bank. 3 Circular No. 50-95 Subject: Court Fiduciary Funds

B. Guidelines in Making Withdrawals:

(4) All collections from bailbonds, rental deposits, and other fiduciary collections shall be deposited within twenty four (24) hours by the Clerk of Court concerned, upon receipt thereof, with the Land Bank of the Philippines.

The recommendation of the investigating judge was submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator. The Office of the Court Administrator, on the other hand, had a different view on the matter. According to its recommendation submitted to this court, respondent is guilty of gross neglect of duty and hence, should be fined and given a stern warning. We agree with the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator.

The records submitted by Executive Judge Honesto A. Villamor established the following undisputed facts: First, the court's collection amounting to Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty Five Pesos (P18,835.00) was lost. Second, the lost money was supposedly kept inside the vault with its key and number combinations known only to the respondent. Third, when asked about the missing court collections, respondent Mansor immediately offered to replace the same.

Notwithstanding all these aforementioned circumstances, respondent still asserted that he had nothing to do with the said loss. He indirectly blamed the loss on the poor condition of the office equipment and insinuated that the money was probably taken by his co-employees.

In the two (2) instances that this matter was investigated, respondent saw to it that the investigation would not prosper. First, when the case was reported to the PNP-Casiguran on September 9, 1998, respondent informed them that the vault was defective. Thus, their investigation ended at that. Then, when the matter was being investigated by Executive Judge Honesto A. Villamor, the complainants expressed their disinterest in pursuing the case as the money was already replaced by the respondent. Note that the respondent did not object to the Order of Executive Judge submitting the case for decision after all the complainants manifested their disinterest in pursuing the case. Even if it were true that he is really not guilty of anything, that the cause of the loss was really due to the poor condition of the office equipment and that it was probably one of his co-employees who took the collections of the court from the vault, this does not erase the fact that he is still the only person responsible for the missing court collections. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees are duty bound to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, and shall remain accountable to the people. Persons involved in the administration of justice ought to live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity in the public service. 4 Hernandez v. Borja, 242 SCRA 162, 166 (1995).Respondent Mansor failed in this case to live up to the responsibility that was expected of him as a Clerk of Court. The money that was entrusted to him was lost. Therefore, he should be held responsible for the missing court collections.

Although the circumstances of the loss of the collections of the court point to only one conclusion - i.e., that he was remiss in his duty of depositing the same within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt with the Land Bank of the Philippines as mandated by Circular No. 50-95 dated October 1995, the alleged malversation of public funds was not proven, thus, respondent can only be held liable for gross neglect of duty. The fact that he ultimately restored the lost amount cannot fully exonerate him from administrative liability. In addition to the aforesaid mitigating circumstance, we also credit in favor of the respondent the fact that he is a first time offender.

WHEREFORE, respondent Jesus O. Mansor, Clerk of Court, MCTC, Branch 52, Casiguran-Juban, Sorsogon, is hereby FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for Gross Neglect of Duty with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of a similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com