Office of the Court Administrator v. Bawalan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Jose R. Bawalan, Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Trece Martires City, was charged with non-cooperation and negligence in the custody of records and accountable forms, leading to the non-completion of a cash examination. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted an audit examination. Findings included failure to report missing official receipts, failure to submit monthly reports of collections and deposits from January 1988 to December 1992, and verbal designation of a subordinate to issue official receipts. Respondent admitted not personally handling collections and relying on his subordinate due to lack of accounting knowledge. He also claimed no formal turnover of duties and accountability from his predecessor. The Petition: The OCA found respondent Bawalan remiss in his duties. The Court imposed a fine of P10,000.00 with a warning against repetition of similar acts.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Jose R. Bawalan was negligent in the performance of his duties as Clerk of Court. Whether the loss of official receipts and failure to submit monthly reports constitute remissness in duty. Whether the respondent's reliance on a subordinate due to lack of accounting knowledge absolves him of responsibility.
Ruling
The Court imposed a fine of P10,000.00 on respondent Atty. Jose R. Bawalan, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Atty. Jose R. Bawalan was negligent in the performance of his duties as Clerk of Court: Yes. The Court found respondent Bawalan remiss in the performance of his duties as branch clerk of court. The Office of the Clerk of Court performs a delicate function as the custodian of the court's funds and revenues, records, properties, and premises. As such custodian, the clerk of court is liable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of said funds and properties. Section 7, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court requires that the clerk shall safely keep all records, papers, files, exhibits, and public property committed to his charge. The loss of official receipts directly attributable to the negligence of the respondent cannot be excused. On whether the loss of official receipts and failure to submit monthly reports constitute remissness in duty: Yes. The loss of the original copies of Official Receipts Nos. 8793447 and 8793448 is directly attributable to the negligence of the respondent. His explanation that the originals were already detached when he received the blank official receipt forms was not given judicial acceptance for want of evidence. Furthermore, respondent was obliged to make monthly reports to the Court regarding all collections and deposits for all funds made in the court to which he was assigned. He admittedly failed to perform this responsibility from January, 1988 to December, 1992. It is of no moment that the money collected was properly accounted for and that there was an excess of remittance, as the "over-remittance" does not obliterate his failure to make the required monthly reports. On whether the respondent's reliance on a subordinate due to lack of accounting knowledge absolves him of responsibility: No. The respondent had no justification whatsoever for leaving the collection and issuance of receipts for legal fees to Emy Austria. It devolved upon him to personally attend to the collection of the fees, the safekeeping of the money collected, the making of proper entries in the corresponding book of accounts, and the deposit of the same in the offices concerned. These duties he had to discharge notwithstanding his admission or pretension that since he had no knowledge of accounting rules and regulations, he was constrained to rely on the assistance of his designated collecting officer. The collection of legal fees is a delicate function of clerks of court as judicial officers entrusted with the correct and effective implementation of the regulations thereon. The evidence further shows that respondent repeatedly refused to submit himself to an audit of his cash receipts and accounts by virtually playing hide-and-seek with government auditors and evading them, thereby obstructing the speedy administration of justice.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk of Court is liable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of funds and properties under his charge. Failure to personally attend to the collection of fees, safekeeping of money, proper entries in books of accounts, and timely deposits, as well as failure to submit required monthly reports, constitutes negligence and remissness in the performance of duties.