Re: Non-submission of Baute
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An audit was conducted on the book of accounts of former Clerk of Court Demasira M. Baute. The audit revealed that most collections made from December 1992 to February 1994 were remitted only on January 17, 1996. Furthermore, no breakdown of official receipts was turned over to the designated officer-in-charge. Procedural History: The Senior Chief Staff Officer of the Supreme Court submitted a Memorandum Report and a Supplemental Memorandum regarding the audit findings and the respondent's subsequent submission of a Certification relative to the properties, books of accounts, and breakdown of receipts turned over to the Officer-in-Charge. The Petition: The case concerns the non-submission by Judge Demasira M. Baute of official cashbooks for various funds and other related documents.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Demasira M. Baute is liable for gross neglect of duty. Whether respondent Judge Baute violated the guidelines provided in Circular No. 50-95 and Administrative Circular No. 5-93.
Ruling
Respondent Judge Demasira Baute is FINED Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely. The fine will be automatically deducted from his uncollected salaries and the remainder released to him.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether respondent Judge Demasira M. Baute is liable for gross neglect of duty: The Court found respondent Judge liable for gross neglect of duty. The audit revealed that collections made from December 1992 to February 1994 were remitted only on January 17, 1996, which is a significant delay. This delay, coupled with the failure to turn over a breakdown of official receipts, demonstrates a clear disregard for established procedures and responsibilities. The Court noted that it took approximately four years before the cash collections were remitted, and this remittance only occurred after the Court's resolution dated November 19, 1995, directed compliance with the Fiscal Audit Office's directive. This inaction suggests a pattern of dereliction of duty. On the issue of whether respondent Judge Baute violated the guidelines provided in Circular No. 50-95 and Administrative Circular No. 5-93: The Court determined that respondent Judge violated the guidelines set forth in Circular No. 50-95, which mandates that all fiduciary collections shall be deposited within twenty-four (24) hours by the Clerk of Court concerned, upon receipt thereof, with the Land Bank of the Philippines. Additionally, Administrative Circular No. 5-93, paragraph 5(c), provides specific rules for the daily deposit of collections for the Judiciary Development Fund, requiring deposits to be made daily, or every second and third Fridays and at the end of every month if daily deposit is not possible, with an immediate deposit requirement if collections reach P500.00. The respondent Judge's actions clearly contravened these directives, as evidenced by the delayed remittance of collections and the absence of a breakdown of official receipts.
Main Doctrine
Failure to remit fiduciary collections within the prescribed period and failure to turn over official receipts constitute gross neglect of duty, warranting a fine and warning.