Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2011 > February 2011 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-06-2221 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-7-215-MTCC) : February 15, 2011] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, PETITIONER -VERSUS-RODELIO E. MARCELO AND MA. CORAZON D. ESPAÑOLA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), SAN JOSE DEL MONTE CITY, BULACAN, RESPONDENTS. :

Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated February 15, 2011, which reads as follows: 

"A.M. No. P-06-2221 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-7-215-MTCC) - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, petitioner -versus- RODELIO E. MARCELO and MA. CORAZON D. ESPA�OLA, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan, respondents.
 

RESOLUTION 

On January 31, 2011, respondent Rodelio E. Marcelo moved for the reconsideration^[1] of the Court's Decision dated October 5, 2010.^[2] In this Decision, the Court dismissed Marcelo from the service, forfeited his retirement and/or separation benefits, except accrued leave credits, and barred him from re-employment in the government service. The Court also directed Marcelo to pay P792,213.00 representing the shortages in public funds during his accountable period as officer-in-charge/Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan. The Court referred a copy of the Decision to the Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate criminal action, if warranted.

Marcelo bewails the failure of the investigating judge, Judge Mario B. Capellan, MTCC, Malolos City, Bulacan, to conduct an investigation of his own. He questions Judge Capellan's conclusion that he incurred shortages in the amount of P792,213.00, as found by the OCA audit team. Marcelo submits that had Judge Capellan "set the administrative case for hearing, [he] would have readily submitted in evidence the relevant deposit slips duly acknowledged by the depository bank, xerox copies of which are hereto attached as unnumbered annexes due to their sheer number."^[3]

We resolve to deny the motion. The belatedly submitted deposit accommodations (deposit slips), cash bond withdrawal receipts and other documents, which are all in xerox copies, are of no moment, for they could have been presented to Judge Capellan, even without a formal hearing. More importantly, Marcelo admitted that he failed to make deposits, as required, and allegedly instead entrusted the undeposited court collections to Bernadette Alconiza, supervising stenographer and his mother's secretary (then San Jose del Monte City Prosecutor), who kept the cash in the vault of the City Prosecutor's Office. The cash were in several bundles, each bundle marked with the amount it contained.^[4] These admissions alone show that he did not deposit the fund, as required by the Rules, but kept these sizeable funds in what was otherwise his personal custody, for an extended period of time, all of which acts amounted to the grave misconduct, dishonesty and gross neglect of duty that our Decision found. Hence, our Decision was amply supported by evidence and by the law.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED for lack of merit.

The Court further Resolved to CONSIDER as SERVED  the Notice of Judgment dated October 12, 2010, addressed to Atty. Lucita E. Marcelo, counsel for respondent Rodelio E. Marcelo, GILERA MARCELO LEGASPI AND ASSOCIATES, 2nd Flr., Hiyas Convention Center Annex Bldg., Capitol Compound, Malolos City, 3000 Bulacan, which Notice was returned unserved with notation on the letter-envelope 'Moved-Out'."

Bersamin, J., on leave.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 348-355.

^[2] Id. at 320-330.

^[3] Supra note 1, at 352.

^[4] Supra note 2, at 323.