Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82433:56305&catid=1575&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:17:40+00:00

Document:
A.M. No. P-12-3047, October 15, 2013 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioners, v. NANCY R. LEAL, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC) -STA. IGNACIA-MAYANTOC-SAN CLEMENTE-SAN JOSE, TARLAC, Respondent.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioners, v. NANCY R. LEAL, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC) -STA. IGNACIA-MAYANTOC-SAN CLEMENTE-SAN JOSE, TARLAC, Respondent.
This administrative case arose from a financial audit conducted in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Sta. Ignacia-Mayantoc-San Clemente-San Jose, Tarlac pursuant to Travel Order Number 021-20111 dated January 24, 2011.
2.d) ACCOUNT for the missing official receipts issued by the Court to the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Sta. Ignacia-Mayantoc-San Clemente-San Jose, Tarlac, with series nos.
Forthwith, the Court issued a Resolution12 on February 27, 2012 adopting the aforesaid memorandum and recommendations of the OCA.
Leal then filed a letter13 on April 12, 2012 asking for an extension of sixty (60) days within which to comply with the Court’s Resolution and/or submit her answer considering that the ten (10) days given to her was too short.
On May 21, 2012, Ms. Genelyn C. Gragasin submitted the Statement of Unwithdrawn Fiduciary Fund14 in compliance with the Court Resolution.
Per Resolution17 dated July 30, 2012, the Court noted, among others, Leal’s letters and granted her a non-extendible period of one hundred twenty (120) days from April 2, 2012 within which to file her answer.
6) She begs for the Court’s indulgence and prays that her suspension be recalled.
After evaluation, the OCA found Leal’s explanation unsatisfactory to absolve her from any accountability and/or recall her suspension and recommended that: a) Leal be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except earned leave credits, and with prejudice to re- employment in the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations; and b) the monetary value of Leal’s accrued leave credits be applied to her monetary accountability amounting to P865,495.68.
The evaluation and recommendations of the OCA are well-taken.
The Answer/Letter-Compliance dated July 30, 2012 of Leal did little to help her case. The fact still remains that a cash shortage amounting to P865,495.68 was incurred during her period of accountability and it still remains unpaid. Further, Leal did not even offer any explanation why there are unreported and undeposited collections; the fact that said unreported and undeposited collections reached the amount of P1,047,400.00 is simply appalling.
Similarly, Leal did not offer any explanation for the following as well, to wit: a) issuance of temporary receipts; b) cancelled official receipts but with court orders that proved otherwise; c) delayed remittances that deprived the government of the bank interest that should have been earned amounting to P296,809.47; d) gross neglect of duty, for failure to perform her functions and duties as an accountable officer; and e) withholding of documents and retaining the same in her possession while the audit team was conducting its examination.
As correctly maintained by the OCA, Leal’s failure to perform her duties and responsibilities as Clerk of Court has caused tremendous losses both in financial and judicial aspects. As an Accountable Officer, she is primarily tasked to remit the court funds without further delay and to manage court records efficiently. Since Leal failed to offer any explanation on the foregoing audit findings, we shall consider the audit team’s report as conclusive and adjudge her liability on the sole basis thereof.
Under Section 52 of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dishonesty, grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty are classified as grave offenses, and merit dismissal even on their first commission.
For her failure to live up to the high ethical standards expected of her as a court employee, and an Accountable Officer at that, Leal’s dismissal is indeed in order.
DIRECT the Office of the Court Administrator to conduct another financial and judicial audit in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Sta. Ignacia-Mayantoc-San Clemente-San Jose, Tarlac from the finality of this Decision.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Del Castillo, Abad, Perez, Reyes, Perlas-Bernabe, and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Bersamin and Mendoza, JJ., on official leave.
5 Id. at 6, 9.
8 Id. at 8-10; TSN, March 15, 2011, pp. 4-9; id. at 43-48.
20 Initial Report on the Financial Audit Conducted at the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC), Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Lucena City, January 30, 2009, 577 SCRA 200.
22Office of the Court Administrator v. Saddi, A.M. No. P-10-2818, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 525, 533, citing Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code and Report on the Financial Audit Conducted on the Books of Accounts of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Mondragon-San Roque, Northern Samar, A.M. No. P-09-2721 (Formerly A.M. No. 09-9-162-MCTC), February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 509, 531.
23Re: Failure of Various Employees to Register Their Time of Arrival and/or Departure from Office in the Chronolog Machine, A.M. No. 2005-21-SC, September 28, 2010, 631 SCRA 396, 409.
24 Civil Service Commission v. Lucas, 361 Phil. 486, 490-491 (1999), citing Landrito v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. Nos. 104304-05, June 22, 1993, 223 SCRA 564.
25Office of the Court Administrator v. Bacani, A.M. No. P-12-3099, January 15, 2013, 688 SCRA 516, 526.

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