Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82802:a-m-no-p-13-3119-formerly-a-m-no-12-9-68-metc-february-10-2014-executive-judge-ma-ofelia-s-contreras-soriano-complainant-v-clerk-iii-liza-d-salamanca-metropolitan-trial-court-branch-55-malabon-city-respondent&catid=1580&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 10:21:51+00:00

Document:
A.M. No. P-13-3119 (Formerly A.M. No. 12-9-68-MeTC), February 10, 2014 - EXECUTIVE JUDGE MA. OFELIA S. CONTRERAS-SORIANO, Complainant, v. CLERK III LIZA D. SALAMANCA, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 55, MALABON, CITY, Respondent.
EXECUTIVE JUDGE MA. OFELIA S. CONTRERAS-SORIANO, Complainant, v. CLERK III LIZA D. SALAMANCA, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 55, MALABON, CITY, Respondent.
This administrative complaint against Liza D. Salamanca (Salamanca), Clerk III of Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Malabon City, Branch 55, was initiated by a letter1 filed on September 5, 2012 before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) by Executive Judge Ma. Ofelia S. Contreras-Soriano (Judge Contreras-Soriano). The letter stated that Salamanca incurred unauthorized/unexplained absences from July 2 to 11, 2012, July 23 to 27, 2012 and August 15 to 22, 2012 without filing any application for leave of absence despite several reminders for her to do so. The letter further relayed other infractions committed by Salamanca with respect to two cases pending before the MeTC, viz: (1) she failed to account for and turn over the P12,000.00 she received for and on behalf of the plaintiff in Jose M. Syjuco v. Dr. Joseph B. Morales as partial settlement of the defendant’s civil obligation; and (2) she failed to account for and turn over the payment for legal fees she received in the case of Sopia Quiroga v. Annie Fermisa which omission was only discovered when the writ of execution cannot be implemented as the receipt evidencing payment of legal fees was not attached to the records.
The Court affirms the OCA’s findings that the complained acts of Salamanca merit punishment albeit with clarification on the findings upon which such conclusion was premised, and with modification of the recommended imposable penalty.
The OCA found that Salamanca received from the defendant in Syjuco the money intended as partial settlement of his civil obligation to the plaintiff therein; that the plaintiff in Quiroga also entrusted to Salamanca an amount intended as payment for legal fees; that she received money from the litigants and failed to turn over the same; that her omissions were discovered when satisfaction/execution of the cases could not be fully implemented; that when asked to explain by Judge Contreras-Soriano, she claimed to have lost the entrusted sums.
As observed by the OCA, Salamanca’s explanation for her omission to turn over the subject sums to their intended recipients is too flimsy to merit consideration. Her claim that she lost the subject amounts while commuting to and from her workplace is but a mere afterthought because her misdeeds were already discovered. There was also no justifiable reason for her to bring the money along at her every whereabouts because she should have turned it over to their proper recipients - the partial settlement amount to the plaintiff in Syjuco and the legal fees payment to the clerk of court. Thus, the repeated instances of deception she staged and the insolence with which they were carried out subdues and renders unnecessary any express admission that she misappropriated the subject sums of money for her personal use.
However, it must be stressed that Salamanca’s dishonesty does not consist of her failure to remit court funds because the money she received from the litigants did not acquire the status of court funds as no official receipt therefor was issued by her. The amounts misappropriated by Salamanca did not prejudice the Court’s coffers since they never formed part of the Judiciary’s public funds. The partial settlement paid by the defendant in Syjuco intended for the plaintiff, but received and misappropriated by Salamanca, was technically private money. The payment for legal fees in Quiroga received and pocketed by Salamanca never attained the status of being part of court funds because no official receipt was issued therefor precisely because Salamanca is not the authorized court employee to receive such payments in behalf of and for the Judiciary. It was not her duty to receive payments and issue official receipts. It also does not appear that she was authorized or designated to do so.7 Since the subject amounts never formed part of the court funds, there was no duty on her part to remit/deposit the same with the Land Bank pursuant to Supreme Court Circular No. 50-95.
For this reason, the stringent attitude of the Court towards clerks of court who fail to remit their fiduciary collections as mandated by Supreme Court Circular No. 50-95 is not applicable to Salamanca who did not hold a similar accountable position nor designated to act as such.
This does not, however, mean that the offense attributable to Salamanca is any less grave. The Court finds that the factors, taken together, are not commensurate with the extreme penalty of dismissal recommended by the OCA. The Court is persuaded to temper its power to wield penalty to an erring employee and instead adopt a compassionate and humane view at Salamanca’s transgressions. A similar leniency was espoused by the Court in analogous cases.
In Arganosa-Maniego v. Salinas8 which involved a utility worker in a Municipal Circuit Trial Court in Macabebe, Pampanga, the Court suspended for one (1) year, instead of dismissing from service, the respondent who was found guilty of dishonesty by taking and encashing for his personal use the check belonging to a Judge. The Court also meted one (1) year suspension to the respondent sheriff in De Guzman, Jr. v. Mendoza9 who was found guilty of dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service by soliciting and receiving money from litigants on several occasions in connection with a writ he was tasked to implement.
Rule 10, Section 46, subsections (A)(1) and (B)(8) of the RRACCS classify serious dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as grave offenses. Serious dishonesty entail outright dismissal from service as punishment while conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is penalized with suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dismissal from service for the second offense.
It is beyond question that prior to this case, Salamanca has had an unblemished record for never having been charged with any administrative offense. She has devoted a considerable period of twenty (20) years of her life to government service. She also humbled herself and acknowledged her infractions and expressed feelings of remorse for her excesses and shortcomings. Also, it is clear from the records that the amount misappropriated by her is not significantly huge.
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, Liza D. Salamanca, Clerk III of Metropolitan Trial Court, Malabon City, Branch 55, is hereby found GUILTY of Dishonesty and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of Public Service, and is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of ONE (1) YEAR without pay, commencing upon notice of this Decision, with warning that a repetition of the same or similar act/s shall be dealt with more severely.
4Re: Deceitful Conduct of Ignacio S. del Rosario, Cash Clerk III, Records and Miscellaneous Matter Section, Checks Disbursement Division, FMO-OCA, A.M. No. 2011-05-SC, September 6, 2011, 656 SCRA 731, 735-736.
5 See Jugueta v. Estacio, A.M. No. CA-04-17-P, November 25, 2004, 486 Phil. 206, 215-216 (2004), citing Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, p. 978, 3rd Ed.
6Ito v. De Vera, 540 Phil. 23, 33-34 (2006).
performs other duties that may be assigned.
8 A.M. No. P-07-2400 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2589-P), June 23, 2009, 590 SCRA 531.
9 493 Phil. 690 (2005).
10Largo v. Court of Appeals, 563 Phil. 293, 305 (2007).
11Consolacion v. Gambito, A.M. No. P-06-2186 (Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-2256-P), July 3, 2012, 675 SCRA 452, 463.
13 See OCA v. Aguilar, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2087 (Formerly OCA I.PI. No. 07-2621-RTJ), June 7, 2011, 651 SCRA 13, 25-29; Arganosa-Maniego v. Salinas, A.M. No. P-07-2400 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2589-P), June 23, 2009, 590 SCRA 531, 544-545; De Guzman, Jr. v. Mendoza, 493 Phil. 690 (2005).
15Arganosa-Maniego v. Salinas, id. at 547.
16 Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991, of the Civil Service Commission, states that an officer or employee in the civil service shall be considered habitually absent if he incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credits under the leave law for at least three (3) months in a semester or at least three (3) consecutive months during the year; Reyes-Macabeo v. Valle, 448 Phil. 583, 588 (2003).

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