Re: Sendin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: An audit was conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator on the books of accounts of Clerk of Court Pacita T. Sendin of the Municipal Trial Court, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, who compulsorily retired on July 19, 2000. The audit covered her accountability for judiciary funds from March 1985 to July 15, 2000. Procedural History: The audit revealed delays in the remittances of funds collections. Specifically, there was an unremitted amount of P51,589.00 for the Judiciary Development Fund, P81,885.20 for the General Fund, and a shortage of P172,198.85 for the Fiduciary Fund as of July 15, 2000. Mrs. Sendin subsequently made remittances in January 2001, covering the total shortage of P303,809.05. The Petition: The case involves the administrative liability of Mrs. Sendin for the delayed remittances of judiciary funds.
Issue(s)
Whether the delay in the remittance of funds collections constitutes neglect of duty or misfeasance for which Clerk of Court Pacita T. Sendin is administratively liable. Whether restitution of the unremitted amounts negates the administrative offense.
Ruling
The Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 on Pacita T. Sendin, to be deducted from her retirement benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of neglect of duty and misfeasance: The Court held that Mrs. Sendin, as Clerk of Court, had the duty to remit collections within the prescribed period. Administrative Circular 5-93 mandates that shortages in amounts to be remitted and years of delay in actual remittance constitute neglect of duty. The Court further stated that undue delay in remittances, at the very least, constitutes misfeasance, citing previous jurisprudence. Mrs. Sendin's failure to properly remit fund collections transgressed the trust reposed in her as an officer of the court, demonstrating a failure to faithfully perform her duties and responsibilities to ensure full compliance with circulars on deposits of collections. On the issue of restitution negating the offense: The Court acknowledged that Mrs. Sendin restituted the amounts, albeit belatedly, in January 2001. However, it emphasized that the non-remittance on time deprived the Court of the interest that could have been earned if the amounts were deposited promptly as required. Therefore, while restitution was considered in mitigation, it did not erase the administrative offense of delayed remittances and the resulting shortage.
Main Doctrine
Undue delay in the remittances of amounts collected by clerks of court constitutes misfeasance, and shortages in remittances, coupled with years of delay, constitute neglect of duty for which administrative liability attaches. While restitution is considered, it does not negate the administrative offense.