Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82485:56356&catid=1576&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 23:09:43+00:00

Document:
A.M. Nos. P-13-3116 & P-13-3112, November 12, 2013 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. MS. ROSA A. ACAMPADO, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, TAFT, EASTERN SAMAR, Respondent.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. MS. ROSA A. ACAMPADO, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, TAFT, EASTERN SAMAR, Respondent.
“Those charged with the dispensation of justice, from the justices and judges to the lowliest clerks, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.”1 Court personnel are expected to act in a manner free from reproach. Medical treatment of a sick husband does not excuse the actions of the respondent who repeatedly deceived this Court by misusing court funds, falsifying public documents, and failing to comply with orders.
For resolution are two consolidated administrative cases where the respondent is charged with failing to submit the documents required by the Fiscal Monitoring Division of this Court; failing to remit her collections on time; and submitting falsified bank deposit slips. A.M. No. P-13-3116 (Formerly A.M. No. 07-11-299-MTC) pertains to the Report on the Non-compliance of respondent Rosa A. Acampado, Clerk II, Municipal Trial Court, Taft, Eastern Samar, to submit additional documents for financial audit. A.M. No. P-13-3112 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3164-P) pertains to the Report on the Financial Audit conducted on the books of account of Rosa A. Acampado and Jean Gladys N. Lobina of the Municipal Trial Court, Taft, Eastern Samar.
It is clear that she committed gross neglect of duty and gross dishonesty and even malversation of public funds when she failed to turn over on time her collections (JDF, SAJF, MF, Fiduciary fund) and altered/tampered deposit slips and official receipts to cover-up collections. x x x.
The Office of the Court Administrator submitted its evaluation, report, and recommendation on Judge Echague’s findings on February 9, 2011.
In an Indorsement dated September 3, 2012, the Deputy Ombudsman for the Visayas resolved to refer for appropriate action the case against respondent Acampado for Malversation of Public Funds18 and deemed the case closed and terminated in so far as the Office of the Ombudsman was concerned.
Whether mitigating circumstances should be considered in this case.
After hearing respondent Acampado’s admission that she under-remitted Judiciary funds and falsified bank deposit slips, Judge Echague found her guilty of gross misconduct and gross neglect of duty punishable by dismissal from service for failing to turn over cash on time. She is also guilty of dishonesty and falsification of public documents for falsifying bank deposit slips. For failing to submit the additional documents, she is guilty of simple neglect of duty.
1. In A.M. No. 07-11-299-MTC (Failure of Ms. Acampado to submit additional documents needed for financial audit), she is guilty of simple neglect of duty. Accordingly, it is recommended that she be fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).
This Court referred the Findings and Recommendations dated July 15, 2010 of Judge Echague to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation.
However, the Office of the Court Administrator considered certain mitigating circumstances in this case. The Office of the Court Administrator noted how respondent Acampado readily acknowledged the offenses and offered her sincerest apologies. This is also the first time that she was charged with an administrative case. Lastly, the length of service of respondent Acampado, which was more than thirty years (30), was also considered.
We agree with the recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator regarding respondent Acampado’s liabilities. However, we disagree with the recommended penalty to be imposed on her.
This is not the first time that this Court has disciplined an erring and dishonest court employee for misappropriating Judiciary funds and falsifying public documents under his or her control. In Rojas, Jr. v. Mina,31 we found the respondent guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty for stealing and encashing Special Allowance for Judges and Justices checks payable to several trial court judges without their consent. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Elumbaring,32 we held that the respondent was guilty of dishonesty for failing to remit the Judiciary Development Fund and Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund collections in full and on time. Similarly, in Court Administrator v. Abdullahi,33 we said that falsification of Daily Time Records amounts to dishonesty, and dismissal from service is proper even if the offense was committed for the first time.
SECTION 1. Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence. They shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.
SECTION 3. Court personnel shall not alter, falsify, destroy or mutilate any record within their control.
This provision does not prohibit amendment, correction or expungement of records or documents pursuant to a court order.
Simple neglect of duty is defined as the “failure to give proper attention to a required task. It signifies disregard of duty due to carelessness or indifference.”39 Respondent Acampado disregarded the directives sent to her on several occasions by this Court through the Court Management Office of the Office of the Court of the Administrator. She merely alleged that she could not produce on time the booklet of official receipts required from her since the booklet was among the documents damaged by water when a portion of the court had been gutted by fire.40 We said before that the failure of a respondent to comply with the Office of the Court Administrator’s directives manifests his or her “indifference to the lawful directives”41 of this Court.
However, the payment of a fine in lieu of suspension is available in grave, less grave, and light offenses when the penalty imposed is suspension for six (6) months or less.43 This Court has deemed it proper to impose the fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) on erring court employees who committed simple neglect of duty.44 We impose the same penalty on respondent Acampado for disregarding her duty to turn over the required documents due to indifference in the face of several court directives.
x x x Misappropriation of judiciary funds is a serious misconduct, a grave offense punishable by dismissal. Although, respondent Rosa A. Acampado was able to fully restitute the shortages, such act will not in any way erase her culpability.
Despite the pronouncements made by the Office of the Court Administrator regarding respondent Acampado’s actions and her failure to meet the high ethical standards expected of court employees, the Office of the Court Administrator still considered certain allegedly mitigating circumstances. According to the Office of the Court Administrator, respondent Acampado’s ready acknowledgment of her actions, her sincerest apologies, her length of service in the Judiciary, and the fact that this is the first time she committed the offenses may be considered as extenuating circumstances.48 Consequently, the Office of the Court Administrator reduced its recommended penalty from dismissal to a fine in the amount equivalent to one (1) year of her salary to be deducted from her retirement benefits.
We disagree with the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation to mitigate the respondent’s liability and lower the penalty to be imposed.
Respondent Acampado committed gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct when she failed to turn over the funds of the Judiciary that were placed in her custody within the period required by law. We said in Office of the Court Administrator v. Fueconcillo that undue delay by itself in remitting collections, keeping the amounts, and spending it for the respondent’s “family consumption, and fraudulently withdrawing amounts from the judiciary funds, collectively constitute gross misconduct and gross neglect of duty.”53 Such behavior should not be tolerated as it denigrates this Court’s image and integrity.
if the respondent is guilty of two (2) or more charges or counts, the penalty to be imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge and the rest shall be considered as aggravating circumstances.
In this case, respondent Acampado is found guilty of more than two charges, which are gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct, and serious dishonesty. All offenses are grave offenses that merit dismissal from service.
GRAVE MISCONDUCT and GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY in A.M. No. P-13-3112 for failing to remit on time her collections and SERIOUS DISHONESTY for misappropriating funds of the Judiciary and falsifying bank deposit slips. She is DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE with forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from holding public office in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Mendoza, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Perez, J., no part, acted as Crt. Adm.
1Office of the Court Administrator v. Fontanilla, A.M. No. P-12-3086, September 18, 2012, 681 SCRA 17, 25.
2 This Memorandum dated October 31, 2007 was docketed as A.M. No. P-13-3116.
3 A.M. No. P-13-3116, rollo, p. 1.
4 Id. at 2, 9, 15, and 17.
7 A.M. No. P-13-3116, rollo, p. 25.
8 A.M. No. P-13-3112, rollo, pp. 3-13.
19 A.M. No. P-13-3112, rollo, p. 168.
21 Letter dated July 7, 2010, A.M. No. P-13-3112, rollo, p. 182.
25 Id. at 225-230. Memorandum dated February 9, 2011, pp. 4-6 citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Bernardino, A.M. No. P-97-1258, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 88.
31 A.M. No. P-10-2867, June 19, 2012, 673 SCRA 592.
32 A.M. No. P-10-2765, September 13, 2011, 657 SCRA 453.
33 A.M. No. P-02-1560, March 20, 2002, 379 SCRA 521.
34 A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, Effective June 1, 2004.
35 Id., 5th Whereas Clause.
37 Report on the non-compliance of Rosa A. Acampado, MTC-Taft, Eastern Samar, to submit additional documents for financial audit.
38 A.M. No. P-13-3116, rollo, p. 24. 39Tolentino-Fuentes v. Galindez, A.M. No. P-07-2410, June 18, 2010, 621 SCRA 189, 194-195 citing Atty. Dajao v. Lluch, 429 Phil. 620, 626 (2002).
40 A.M. No. P-13-3112, rollo, p. 191.
41 Sesbreño v. Gako, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-08-2144, November 3, 2008, 570 SCRA 398, 407.
42See Failure of Atty. Jacinto B. Peñaflor, Jr., Clerk of Court VI, Regional Trial Court, San Jose, Camarines Sur, to Submit the Required Monthly Report of Collections, Deposits, and Withdrawals, A.M. No. P-07-2339, August 20, 2008, 562 SCRA 373.
43 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2011), Rule 10, Sec. 47 (2).
44See Office of the Court Administrator v. Paredes, A.M. No. P-06–2103, April 17, 2007, 521 SCRA 365; Vda. de Feliciano v. Rivera, A.M. No. P-11-2920, September 19, 2012, 681 SCRA 323. See also Office of the Administrator v. Go, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1667, April 10, 2012, 669 SCRA 1.
45 Report on the Financial Audit on the Books of Account of the MTC-Taft, Eastern Samar.
46 A.M. No. P-13-3112, rollo, p. 168.
49 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2011), Rule 10, Sec. 46.
Classification of Offenses – Administrative Offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, p. 4. See also Office of the Court Administrator v. Canque, A.M. No. P-04-1830, June 4, 2009, 588 SCRA 226.
51Office of the Court Administrator v. Bawalan, A.M. No. P-93-945, March 24, 1994, 231 SCRA 408, 411. See also Office of the Court Administrator v. Fontanilla, A.M. No. P-12-3086, September 18, 2012, 681 SCRA 17 citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Lising, A.M. No. P-03-1736, March 8, 2005, 453 SCRA 16, 22.
52Office of the Court Administrator v. Fontanilla, A.M. No. P-12-3086, September 18, 2012, 681 SCRA 17, 24.
53 A.M. No. P-06-2208, August 26, 2008, 563 SCRA 226, 236.
54 (Re: Alleged Anomaly that transpired in LRC Case No. 181 tried before RTC, Branch 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino) Executive Judge Menrado V. Corpuz, Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino v. Max Ramiterre, Civil Docket Clerk, et al., A.M. No. P-04-1779, November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 108, 121 citing Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting, Court Secretary I and Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division, A.M. No. 2001-7-SC & No. 2001-8-SC, July 22, 2005, 464 SCRA 1; Office of the Court Administrator v. Yan, A.M. No. P-98-1281, April 27, 2005, 457 SCRA 389; Alabastro v. Moncada, Sr., A.M. No. P-04-1887 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1645-P), December 16, 2004, 447 SCRA 42.
55 Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2011), Rule 10, Sec. 46.
56 See Re: Withholding of Other Emoluments of the following Clerks of Court: ELSIE C. REMOROZA of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Mauban, Quezon; ELENA P. REFORMADO of the MTC of Guinayangan, Quezon; EUGENIO STO. TOMAS of the MTC of Cabuyao, Laguna; MAURA D. CAMPAÑO of the MTC of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro; ELEANOR D. FLORES of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Taytay, Palawan; and JESUSA P. BENIPAYO of the MCTC of Ligao, Albay, A.M. No. 01-4-133-MTC, August 26, 2003, 409 SCRA 574.
57Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. See Anonymous Complaint Against Sheriff Sales T. Bisnar, Regional Trial Court, Branch 78, Morong, Rizal, A.M. No. 05-7-458-RTC, August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 17.
58Cabanatan v. Molina, A.M. No. P-01-1520, November 21, 2001, 370 SCRA 16, 26.
60 A.M. No. P-97-1258, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 88.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.