Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=49743:am-p-05-1975-2007&amp;catid=1494&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:50:53+00:00

Document:
A.M. No. P-05-1975 - Maricris A. Alenio et al. v. Eladia T. Cunting et al.
MARICIS A. ALENIO, EDISON F. AMPER, NESTOR M. APPARI, LILY DELA CRUZ, and PERIGRINO M. MACROHON, Complainants, v. ELADIA T. CUNTING, Clerk of Court IV, and MARIE GAY B. NARANJO, Clerk III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities-Office of the Clerk of Court, Zamboanga City, Respondents.
This administrative case against Eladia T. Cunting, Clerk of Court IV and Marie Gay B. Naranjo, Clerk III (respondents), both of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities-Office of the Clerk of Court, Zamboanga City, arose from sworn complaints1 filed by Maricis A. Alenio, Edison F. Amper, Nestor M. Appari, Lily dela Cruz, and Perigrino M. Macrohon (complainants). The complaints charged respondents with gross misconduct, dishonesty, and violation of Republic Act No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
5. Perigrino M. Macrohon's complaint dated 29 March 2004 relative to Criminal Case No. 45492 (6436) for Theft, with accused Jayson Solis having posted a cash bail bond of P7,500.00.
All the above complainants were the ones who personally deposited their respective cash bonds with respondent Naranjo who, in turn, issued them corresponding receipts. Subsequently, all the cases were terminated/dismissed and the bonds posted were ordered to be returned to them.
All complainants chorus in saying that when they sought the return of their respective cash bonds, the Officer-in-Charge of the OCC, MTCC, Zamboanga City, informed them that the OCC could not return the money because the cash bonds were not deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines by the person who received them or by the accountable officer, hence, complainants believe that they were pocketed by either of the said persons.
In the Letter-Comment dated 7 June 2004, respondent Cunting completely denies the allegation that the amount of money representing the bail bonds posted were pocketed either by her or any other employee of the OCC as the same is bereft of factual and legal bases. She narrates the antecedent circumstances which could explain why she was not made aware of the complainants' claims, otherwise, she could have enlightened them on the matter.
Sometime in September 2003 while respondent Cunting was on official travel to Dipolog City, she was asked to go back to her official station because some internal auditors from the Supreme Court conducted inspection and audit of the financial documents in her office. Upon her return to Zamboanga City, however, she was advised by Executive Judge Efren S. Mariano to refrain from proceeding to her office so as not to interfere in the said audit. On the contrary, she was informed by her staff that the auditors intended to have a dialogue with her. She heeded the advise of the Executive Judge because of the latter's assurance that he will be the one who will have a dialogue with the auditors, hence, she was not able to talk to them.
According to the information received from the Office of the Executive Judge, respondent Cunting was temporarily relieved from office per Order of the Supreme Court. Relying thereon, she has refrained from reporting to office and has yet to receive the Court's written order. She has thus been deprived of her salaries and other benefits as the same have been held in abeyance accordingly upon instruction of the Executive Judge.
Respondent says that she had been apprised by the resident auditor of the discrepancies in the financial documents in her custody even prior to the Supreme Court audit. In the absence of pertinent financial documents, she could not as yet ascertain the authenticity of any claim for the release of bail bonds.
Respondent Cunting accuses the complainants of filing charges without any knowledge of the facts, merely relying on the allegations of some ill-motivated employees. She strongly believes she was not accorded due process and was not granted the benefit of the doubt when she was immediately relieved from office pending the results of the audit conducted by the internal auditors.
Nonetheless, respondent assures this Office that she would make herself available should she be required to answer any clarificatory and other relevant questions.
In her Comment-Answer dated 18 May 2004, respondent Naranjo says she was surprised when she received the complaint because she has been doing her job with utmost honesty, responsibility, integrity, efficiency and good faith, that's why she has never been charged before. Although she received the subject cash bonds, the same are covered by official receipts and as it has been the usual practice and procedure of her office, she immediately turned over the said bonds and receipts to co-respondent Cunting for appropriate action.
1. She did not deny having received the cash bail bonds of the complainants. Machine copies of the official receipts are attached as annexes to the complaint.
2. She did not deny the fact that the Court had ordered the cancellation of the subject bail bonds and their return to the complainants.
5. Evidently, respondent Cunting has committed the administrative offenses of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty each of which carries the extreme penalty of dismissal (Omnibus Civil Service Rules, Rule IV, Sections 52 and 58). The Clerk of Court is an officer of the law who performs vital functions in the prompt and sound administration of justice. She performs a delicate function as designated custodian of the court's funds, revenues, records, properties and premises. As a public servant and as an officer of the court, the Clerk of Court must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity. Respondent Cunting's act of misappropriation of the cash bail bonds constitute grave misconduct and dishonesty and made unworthy of the public trust reposed on her. (Provincial Auditor Dizon v. Atty. Bawalan, Clerk of Court, et. al. A. M. No. P-94-1031, July 1, 2003; Turibio v. Atty. Ofilas, A.M. No. P-03-1714, February 13, 2004).
Co-respondent Marie Gay B. Naranjo committed no wrong doing. She simply performed as part of her duty as Clerk III in receiving the cash bail bonds and preparing the official receipts, after which, she turned them over to respondent Clerk of Court Cunting for her appropriate action. Said co-respondent Naranjo merely followed the usual practice and procedure of the Office of the Clerk of Court.
We adopt the recommendation of the OCA.
The complaint against respondent Naranjo should be dismissed. As correctly found by the OCA, complainants failed to substantiate their charges against her.
With respect to respondent Cunting, while she "completely denied" having "pocketed" the cash bail bonds of complainants,11 she did not deny having received the same. Also, she did not deny complainants' assertion that the cash bail bonds were not deposited in the Land Bank of the Philippines. Respondent Cunting's failure to account for funds deposited with her for safekeeping only means that she was remiss in her duty as a clerk of court and as custodian of the court's funds.
All these requisites are met in the present case. Respondent Cunting failed to live up to the high ethical standards demanded by the office she occupies. She also undermined the integrity of the service and jeopardized the public's faith in the courts. This leaves us no choice but to hold respondent Cunting liable for gross dishonesty and grave misconduct in office, and to order her dismissal from office.
WHEREFORE, we find Eladia T. Cunting, Clerk of Court IV, Municipal Trial Court in Cities-Office of the Clerk of Court, Zamboanga City, GUILTY of gross dishonesty and grave misconduct. Accordingly, we DISMISS her from the service with forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
We DISMISS the complaint against Marie Gay B. Naranjo, Clerk III of the same court, for lack of merit.
1 Rollo, pp. 2, 6, 10, 14, and 18.
2 Id. at 22 and 23.
12 Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 34, Balaoan, La Union, A.M. No. 02-1-66-RTC, 19 August 2004, 437 SCRA 72.
13 Neri v. Hurtado, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-00-1584, 18 February 2004, 423 SCRA 200.
14 Sy v. Esponilla, A.M. No. P-06-2261, 30 October 2006, 506 SCRA 14.
15 Fojas, Jr. v. Rollan, 428 Phil. 22 (2002).
16 OCA v. Saguyod, 429 Phil. 421 (2002).
17 Aquino, Jr. v. Miranda, A.M. No. P-01-1453, 27 May 2004, 429 SCRA 230.
18 Ito v. De Vera, A.M. No. P-01-1478, 13 December 2006, 511 SCRA 1; Madrid v. Quebral, 459 Phil. 306 (2003).
19 Servino v. Adolfo, A.M. No. P-06-2204, 30 November 2006, 509 SCRA 42.
20 Imperial v. Santiago, Jr., 446 Phil. 104 (2003).
21 Sections 52, paragraph A(3) and 58(a), Rule IV, Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

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