Office of the Court Administrator v. Duque
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eugenio Taguba, Process Server of MTCC-Br. 2, requested an investigation into alleged anomalies during the implementation of a writ of execution in Crim. Case No. II-4066 (People of the Philippines v. Marirose Valencia). Procedural History: Judge Ruben R. Plata convicted Marirose Valencia of violation of BP Blg. 22, sentencing her to pay P120,000.00 fine and P100,000.00 civil liability. Pending reconsideration, Valencia and her counsel delivered P120,000.00 to Tessie Duque, Clerk IV of MTCC-Br. 1, for safekeeping. Subsequently, Judge Maxwell Rosete, who assumed office after Judge Plata, denied the motion for reconsideration and issued a writ of execution. Sheriff Wilmer Beltejar discovered Valencia had already delivered the money to respondent Duque. Judge Rosete required Duque to comment, but she filed a manifestation requesting an order for proper turnover. Judge Rosete then issued an order of garnishment, and Sheriff Beltejar took the money from Duque, issued a receipt, and turned it over to the Branch Clerk of Court, who also issued a receipt. The money was eventually delivered to Reynaldo Valmonte, the complainant. The Petition: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) adopted the findings of the investigating judge and recommended disciplinary action against respondent Duque for keeping and receiving money without authority, proposing a P5,000.00 fine. For respondent Judge Plata, the OCA found no concrete evidence of his receipt of money for settlement but recommended he be advised to be more careful. The Court required parties to manifest willingness to submit the case for decision, which they failed to do.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Tessie Duque is administratively liable for receiving and keeping money without authority. Whether respondent Judge Ruben R. Plata is liable for any complicity in the receipt of the money.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Tessie Duque guilty of simple misconduct and suspended her without pay for two months. Respondent Judge Ruben R. Plata was advised to be more prudent and circumspect in his dealings.
Ratio Decidendi
On the administrative liability of respondent Tessie Duque: The Court held that respondent Duque, as Clerk IV, was not authorized to receive money for safekeeping, especially since she was detailed to MTCC-Br. 1 and not Br. 2 where the case was pending. Even if the exigency of the situation justified her receipt of the money, she was still liable for failing to turn over its custody to the Clerk of Court of MTCC-Br. 2 as soon as possible. Instead, she kept the money for 17 months, releasing it only after a garnishment order was issued. By accepting the money, she arrogated to herself the authority to exercise a function that properly belongs to the Branch Clerk of Court. While a Clerk IV may perform other duties assigned, respondent Judge Plata did not assign or authorize her to receive or keep the money; on the contrary, he instructed her to return it. The Court found no evidence that respondent Duque was moved by evident bad faith, dishonesty, or hatred, thus holding her liable only for simple misconduct. Section 52(B)(2) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service penalizes simple misconduct with suspension. Considering her good faith, the penalty of suspension without pay for two months was deemed proper. On the liability of respondent Judge Ruben R. Plata: The Court agreed with the OCA that there was no evidence of complicity on the part of respondent Judge Plata with respect to the receipt of the money. However, he was advised to be more prudent and circumspect in his dealings, as a judge's official conduct must be free from any appearance of impropriety and his personal behavior should be beyond reproach to promote public confidence in the judiciary.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk IV, not being authorized to receive money for safekeeping, is liable for simple misconduct for keeping money entrusted to her for an extended period without turning it over to the Clerk of Court, even if acting in good faith.