Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83874:58581&catid=1589&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:49:06+00:00

Document:
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. MRS. AURORA T. ZUÑIGA, CLERK OF COURT II, MRS. MINDA H. CERVANTES, STENOGRAPHER 1, BOTH OF MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT (MTC) VIRAC, CATANDUANES, AND MR. PEPITO F. LUCERO, INTERPRETER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 43, VIRAC, CATANDUANES, Respondents.
Specifically, the financial audit team examined the books of account of the MTC covering the period from March 3, 1985 to March 31, 2008, under the following accountable officers: Mrs. Aurora T. Zuñiga (respondent), Mrs. Paz T. Tacorda (Tacorda), Mrs. Minda H. Cervantes (Cervantes), Mr. Pepito F. Lucero (Lucero), Mr. Garibaldi L. Sarmiento (Sarmiento), and Ms. Sonia T. Bagadiong (Bagadiong).
b) EXPLAIN in writing why he should not be administratively dealt with for failure to deposit his collections to their respective fund bank accounts, which is contrary of the circulars issued by the Court in the proper handling of Judiciary Funds.
III. MS. SONIA T. BAGADIONG and Mr. GARIBALDI L. SARMIENTO, former Officers-in-Charge of MTC, Virac, Catanduanes, after having been audited of their books of accounts which were found to be in order, be CLEARED from any accountability in so far as their period of accountability as an Officers-in-Charge are concerned.
IV. MRS. MINDA H. CERVANTES, Court Stenographer I and former Officer-in-Charge of MTC, Virac, Catanduanes, be DIRECTED within ten (10) days from receipt of this notice to: a) RESTITUTE her incurred shortage on Fiduciary Fund account in the amount of Four Thousand One Hundred Pesos (P4,100.00) supported by duly validated deposit slip/s as proof of compliance, copy furnished the Fiscal Monitoring Division, Court Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator; b) EXPLAIN in writing why she failed to deposit her collections amounting to Forty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Pesos (P49,660.00), thus, depriving the government of the interests that should have been earned (Annex “D”-Summary of Unreported/Undeposited Fiduciary Fund Collections); and c) EXPLAIN in writing why she should not be administratively dealt with for failure to deposit big/substantial portion of her collections on Fiduciary Fund to its fund bank account.
c. Fiduciary Fund collections in the amount of Two Hundred Sixty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Three Pesos and 35/100 Centavos (P269,363.35).
5. SECURE from the Finance Division and/or from the Accounting Division, Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator certified photocopies of vouchers, checks or any documents that would show that on March 5, 1997, her withheld salary checks and bonuses from January 1996 to February 1997 were applied to her JDF undeposited collections covering the period from September 29, 1988 to November 13, 1995 amounting to Eighty Seven Thousand Seventy Pesos and 89/100 Centavos (P87,070.89).
Lucero, in his letter,8 dated March 2, 2009, claimed that the amount mentioned in the report was already deposited9 to the account of the court in the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) on May 19, 2008.
Cervantes, on the other hand, explained in her letter,10 dated March 9, 2009, that her shortage was mainly due to missing reimbursement receipts that she could not locate anymore, which was why she opted to just restitute her shortage of P4,100.00 on March 2, 2009 by depositing it in the bank.
b. TRANSMIT to this Court through the Fiscal Monitoring Division, Court Management Office, all the documents (i.e., court orders and acknowledgment receipts of the bondsmen/litigants) to support the validity and authenticity of the withdrawals/refund of cash bonds as enumerated in the attached list of Fiduciary Collections from 26 June 1992 to 11 August 1995 amounting to Two Hundred Thirty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty Pesos (P232,860.00). Failure to provide this Court with the said requirements, the same shall be considered outstanding and unwithdrawn and she will be directed to restitute the aforementioned amount.
In her letters, dated August 19, 201014 and September 30, 2010,15 Zuñiga claimed that she had already complied with the Court’s directive of January 28, 2009. She averred that, on July 9, 2007, she personally handed over to the presiding judge, Hon. Lorna B. Santiago-Ubalde (Judge Santiago-Ubalde), the following amounts as restitution: P20,640.00 for the JDF P146,750.00 for the FF; and P31,000.00 for the Process Server’s Deposit (STP Fund) She further claimed that, in addition to the said payments, on January 30, 2008, she further deposited another P10,000.00 as additional restitution for the FF and that although she was not the designated collecting officer for the FF from July 10, 2007 to March 31, 2008, but the late Cheryl Gonzales and Miss Judith Tacorda, the said collections were all deposited with the LBP.
In the meantime, Judge Santiago-Ubalde, in a letter,16 dated September 21, 2010, informed the Court that Zuñiga already received the suspension order on August 17, 2010, but she still had not made any restitution as directed.
In its Memorandum,18 dated May 30, 2011, considering that the Court, in its previous resolution,19 took note of the payment of the court fine of Cervantes and Lucero while Tacorda paid her shortage of P10.00 and explained why she was not able to immediately comply with the Court’s memorandum, dated January 28, 2009, the OCA recommended that the administrative matter against Cervantes, Lucero and Tacorda be closed and terminated. In the meantime, the OCA requested additional time of sixty (60) days to fully evaluate the letters and documents that Zuñiga submitted.
In the September 14, 2011 Resolution,20 the Court resolved to consider the administrative matter against Cervantes, Lucero and Tacorda as closed and terminated. The Court likewise granted the OCA’s request for additional time to complete the evaluation of the letters and documents of Zuñiga.
2.2) COORDINATE with the Fiscal Monitoring Division (FMD), Court Management Office (CMO), OCA, before the processing of the checks to be issued in favor of the Fiduciary Fund account of the MTC, Virac Catanduanes, and for the preparation of the necessary communication with the incumbent Clerk of Court/Officer-in-Charge thereat.
3.3) Notice of Salary Adjustment (NOSA), if any.
After a careful examination of the records of this case, the Court finds the recommendation of the OCA to be correct.
(1) Withdrawal slips shall be signed by the Executive/Presiding Judge and countersigned by the Clerk of Court.
(2) No withdrawals, except as specifically provided in the immediately preceding paragraph, shall be allowed unless there is a lawful order from the Court that has jurisdiction over the subject matter involved.
(3) When maintaining a current account, withdrawals shall be made by check. Signatures on the check shall likewise be the Executive/Presiding Judge and the Clerk of Court.
More importantly, delayed remittance of cash collections constitutes gross neglect of duty because this omission deprives the court of interest that may be earned if the amounts were to be deposited in the authorized depository bank. SC Circular No. 13-92 requires clerks of court to withdraw interest earned on deposits and to remit the same to the account of the JDF within two (2) weeks after the end of each quarter.34 Delay in the remittance of court’s funds casts a serious doubt on the concerned court employee’s trustworthiness and integrity. As ruled in In Re: Report on the Judicial and Financial Audit of RTC-Br. 4, Panabo, Davao del Norte35 and Office of the Court Administrator v. Recio,36 the failure of the Clerk of Court to remit the court funds was tantamount to gross neglect of duty, dishonesty and grave misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The Court cannot accept Zuñiga’s argument that she already made the appropriate restitution because it was not supported by evidence. Zuñiga posits that she personally gave the money to her presiding judge to answer for her accountabilities on July 9, 2007,38 but it was only in 2008 that the financial audit team examined her books of account. Besides, a claim of payment is just a self-serving allegation and mere allegation of payment without proof merits no weight. In fact, Judge Santiago-Ubalde belied this claim in her letter,39 dated September 21, 2010, when she specifically mentioned that Zuñiga did not make any restitution whatsoever. She also dragged the names of her other co-workers in her predicament, but passing the blame to another with no credible explanation would not suffice to absolve her from liability.
The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and the disqualification for reemployment in the government service. Further, it may be imposed without prejudice to criminal or civil liability.
2) COORDINATE with the Fiscal Monitoring Division, Court Management Office (CMO), OCA, before the processing of the checks to be issued in favor of the Fiduciary Fund account of the MTC, Virac, Catanduanes, and for the preparation of the necessary communication with the incumbent Clerk of Court/Officer-in-Charge thereat.
2.3 Notice of Salary Adjustment (NOSA), if any.
C] The Legal Office, OCA, to file the appropriate criminal charges against respondent Aurora T. Zuñiga.
6 The report reflected 2006 instead of 2007; id. at 12.
19 dated September 08, 2010, pp. 154-155.
24 See also Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted in the MTCC-OCC, Angeles City, 525 Phil. 548, 560 (2006).
25 Dated October 11, 1995.
26 Dated March 1, 1992.
27Office of the Court Administrator v. Varela, 568 Phil. 9, 18 (2008).
28 Id.; Office of the Court Administrator v. Dureza-Aldevera, 534 Phil. 102, 132 (2006); Re: Initial Report on the Financial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court of Pulilan, Bulacan, A.M. No. 01-11-291-MTC, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 486, 494.
29Office of the Court Administrator v. Dureza-Aldevera, 534 Phil. 102, 132 (2006); Office of the Court Administrator v. Fortaleza, 434 Phil. 511, 522 (2002).
34 Effective March 1, 1992.
35 351 Phil. 1, 21-22 (1998).
36 A.M. No. P-04-1813, May 31, 2011, 649 SCRA 552, 571.
37Commission on Audit-Region VI v. Pamposa, 552 Phil. 538, 542 (2007); Office of the Court Administrator v. Dureza-Aldevera, 534 Phil. 102, 132 (2006); Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted in the MTCC-OCC, Angeles City, 525 Phil. 548, 560 (2006); Re: Initial Report on the Financial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court of Pulilan, Bulacan, A.M. No. 01-11-291-MTC, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 486, 492.
42Sollesta v. Mission, 497 Phil. 55, 72 (2005).
43Re: Financial Report on the Audit Conducted in MCTC, Apalit-San Simon, Pampanga, 574 Phil. 218, 238 (2008).
44Office of the Court Administrator v. Bernardino, 490 Phil. 500, 524 (2005).
45 Administrative Circular No. 3-2000, June 15, 2000.
46Re: Report on the Financial Audit in the MTC, Sta. Cruz, Davao del Sur, 508 Phil. 143, 149-150 (2005).
47 Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 99-1936, dated August 31, 1999, otherwise known as the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
48 Section 52. 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.
49Office of the Court Administrator v. Besa, 437 Phil. 372, 381 (2002).

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