In re: Report on the Audit Conducted on the Cashbooks of Then Clerk of Court Priscilla Hernandez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An audit of the cashbooks of Priscilla Hernandez, then Clerk of Court of the RTC, Tangub City, Misamis Occidental, for the period October 23, 1992, to June 15, 1993, revealed shortages totaling P8,637.00. These shortages were incurred by her designated Collecting Officer, Mr. Macutob. While Mr. Macutob restituted the full amount, he was dismissed from service. A subsequent audit for the period up to November 1993 uncovered an under-remittance of P412.00 in the Clerk of Court General Fund. Further examination revealed an under-remittance of P480.78 in the Sheriff General Fund. Procedural History: Following the initial audit and Mr. Macutob's dismissal, Priscilla Hernandez was promoted to Presiding Judge of the MCTC, Jimenez-Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental. She was required to submit her judicial cashbooks for audit. While her Judiciary Development Fund account showed zero accountability, an under-remittance of P412.00 was found in the Clerk of Court General Fund. The Supreme Court directed her to submit the required documents and show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken. After reviewing her submissions, the Fiscal Audit Division noted a reduced shortage in the Clerk of Court General Fund and an under-remittance in the Sheriff General Fund. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that Judge Hernandez pay the P480.78 shortage and be fined P2,000.00 for negligence. The Petition: This matter concerns the administrative liability of Judge Priscilla Hernandez for negligence in her former role as Clerk of Court. The Supreme Court, agreeing with the Office of the Court Administrator, found her guilty of neglect of duty for failing to exercise due diligence in supervising her subordinate, Mr. Macutob, who was responsible for collections. Although not found to be dishonest, her tacit admission of negligence was considered a mitigating circumstance. The Court imposed a fine of P500.00 and ordered her to pay the P480.78 shortage, with her withheld salaries to be released upon payment.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Priscilla Hernandez, as Clerk of Court, is administratively liable for negligence in the supervision of her subordinate, Mr. Nemesio Macutob, which led to shortages in government funds. Whether respondent Priscilla Hernandez is guilty of dishonesty in connection with the shortages found in the Clerk of Court General Fund.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Priscilla Hernandez guilty of neglect of duty. She was ordered to pay a fine of P500.00 and to pay the amount of P480.78 for the shortage in the Sheriff General Fund, less any amount already deposited. Upon payment, her withheld salaries as Judge were to be released.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence in supervision: The Court affirmed the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator that respondent Priscilla Hernandez was guilty of neglect of duty in failing to exercise due diligence in supervising her subordinate, Mr. Nemesio Macutob. As Clerk of Court, she possessed general administrative supervision over all personnel and was the accountable officer. Her duties included collecting and receiving monies, and ensuring that subordinates faithfully performed their duties regarding deposits of collections, in compliance with relevant circulars. The practice of Mr. Macutob taking home daily collections and accountable forms, which was beyond normal procedure, should have been noticed and addressed by the respondent. Furthermore, allowing Mr. Macutob to continue handling collections after the discovery of irregularities in June 1993 indicated a lack of strict supervision. The Court emphasized that even though Macutob was the designated collecting officer, the Clerk of Court remained the accountable officer responsible for the proper handling of government funds. On the issue of dishonesty: The Court found no evidence of dishonesty on the part of respondent Priscilla Hernandez. While she admitted the shortage and took steps to rectify it, her actions did not demonstrate intent to defraud or misappropriate funds. The Court considered her tacit admission of negligence, coupled with it being her first administrative offense, as mitigating circumstances. This led to the reduction of the recommended fine.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk of Court, as the accountable officer and having general administrative supervision over all personnel, remains responsible for the proper handling of collections and deposits, even if a subordinate was designated as the collecting officer. Failure to exercise strict supervision constitutes negligence, which may warrant disciplinary action.