Office of the Court Administrator v. Duque
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Eugenio Taguba, Process Server of MTCC-Br. 2, Santiago City, 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 rendered a decision convicting Marirose Valencia of violation of BP Blg. 22. 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 the former office of MTCC-Br. 2, 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, issuing 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, recommending disciplinary action against respondent Duque for keeping and receiving money without authority, and imposing a fine of P5,000.00. For respondent Judge Plata, the OCA found no concrete evidence of complicity but recommended he be advised to be more careful. The Court required parties to manifest willingness to submit the case for decision, but they failed to do so.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Tessie Duque is administratively liable for receiving and keeping money for safekeeping without authority. Whether respondent Judge Ruben R. Plata is liable for complicity in the receipt of the money.
Ruling
Respondent Tessie Duque is found GUILTY of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT and is SUSPENDED without pay for two months. Respondent Judge Ruben R. Plata is 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 a Clerk IV, is not authorized to receive money for safekeeping, especially since the case was pending in a different branch (MTCC-Br. 2) where she was not detailed. Even if the exigency of the situation justified her receipt of the money, she is still liable for failing to turn over its custody to the Clerk of Court of MTCC-Br. 2 as soon as possible. She kept the money for 17 months (May 9, 2001, to October 4, 2002) and only released it after a garnishment order was issued. By accepting the money, she arrogated to herself the authority to perform a function belonging to the Branch Clerk of Court. While a Clerk IV may perform other assigned duties, Judge Plata did not assign or authorize her to receive or keep the money; in fact, 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 is no concrete evidence of complicity on the part of respondent Judge Plata with respect to the receipt of the money. He maintained that he merely brokered a meeting for amicable settlement and, upon learning of the money's custody by respondent Duque, immediately instructed its return. The Court found no evidence that he received money for the settlement of the case. However, he was advised to be more prudent and circumspect in his dealings to avoid similar incidents, emphasizing that 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 is not authorized to receive or keep money for safekeeping, especially when the case is pending in another branch. Failure to turn over custody of money to the Clerk of Court as soon as possible constitutes simple misconduct, even if acting in good faith.