Office of the Court Administrator v. Soriano and Tijam
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Amando Soriano, a deputy clerk of court and accountable officer, designated respondent Mila Tijam, a clerk, as collection clerk. An audit for the period January 11, 1976, to December 6, 1982, revealed a shortage of P56,850.71 from their collections. Procedural History: Both respondents did not contest the audit finding. Tijam assured restoration of the amount. Soriano claimed sole responsibility of Tijam. However, the investigating judge found that Soriano made the restitution. The investigating judge recommended absolution for both respondents due to restitution. The Petition: The Office of the Court Administrator sought disciplinary action against respondents Amando Soriano and Mila Tijam for the shortage in court collections.
Issue(s)
Whether the restitution of the shortage exempts respondents Amando Soriano and Mila Tijam from administrative and criminal liability. Whether Amando Soriano, as the accountable officer, is liable for the shortage despite designating a collection clerk. Whether Mila Tijam, as the collection clerk, is liable for the shortage.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that restitution does not exempt respondents from liability. Both respondents are found administratively and criminally liable for malversation. They are ordered separated from the service, with forfeiture of all retirement privileges and prejudice to reappointment to any government position. The case is referred to the Tanodbayan for appropriate action.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether restitution exempts respondents from liability: The Court held that the fact that the shortage was fully restituted does not exempt respondents from responsibility. The Supreme Court, citing People vs. Miranda, stated that payment, indemnification, or reimbursement after the commission of the crime affects only the civil liability but does not extinguish criminal liability or relieve the offender from the prescribed penalty. Both malversation of public funds and estafa are public offenses that must be prosecuted and penalized by the government, even if complete reparation has been made. On the liability of Amando Soriano: The Court found Amando Soriano, as the Officer-in-Charge and Accountable Officer, responsible for all collections made by the court. Any loss or shortage resulting from non-remittance, unlawful deposit, or misapplication is for his account. It is not an excuse that his designated collection clerk failed to remit the amount on time, as it was incumbent upon him to exercise the strictest supervision over the person he designated. Failing to exercise strict supervision makes him liable for malversation through negligence. On the liability of Mila Tijam: The Court found Mila Tijam, the collection clerk, likewise liable for failure to account for the monies that came into her hand. The circumstance that she was over-zealous in the restitution of the shortage was indicative of her having a direct hand in the same. The Court noted that the shortage existed as of October 31, 1982, and was restored only in February 1983, creating a presumption of misappropriation, with her offer to restore being merely a mitigating circumstance that could not exempt her from liability.
Main Doctrine
Restitution of a shortage does not exempt accountable public officers from administrative and criminal liability for malversation, as the failure to exercise proper supervision or the failure to account for funds constitutes an offense.