Rebong v. Tengco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Jonathan A. Rebong and his mother filed separate complaints for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 against Edwina and Ferdinand Dator. Upon inquiry with respondent Elizabeth R. Tengco, the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, regarding the filing fees for these three cases, complainant was quoted an amount of P400,000.00. Believing the respondent, complainant paid this sum in cash and was issued photocopies of receipts, with the respondent promising to provide the originals later. When the originals were not provided, respondent claimed they were lost. Subsequent inquiries by the complainant revealed that the filing fees paid were excessively high. Procedural History: The complainant filed a Sinumpaang Salaysay with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on April 11, 2006, charging the respondent with grave misconduct, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and dishonesty. The OCA recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, for investigation. Executive Judge Jaime C. Blancaflor conducted hearings, during which the respondent failed to appear. Judge Blancaflor found the respondent guilty of grave misconduct and recommended dismissal from service. This Court referred the findings to the OCA, which concurred with the findings of misconduct and dishonesty, recommending forfeiture of retirement benefits, restitution to the complainant, and initiation of criminal proceedings. The Petition: This Court, after evaluating the records and recommendations, found the respondent administratively liable for gross dishonesty and grave misconduct. The Court determined that the correct legal fees should have been P75,525.00, not the P400,000.00 collected. The respondent violated several circulars by failing to issue original receipts, losing the originals without proper reporting, and failing to deposit the collected funds immediately. Consequently, the Court ordered the forfeiture of respondent's retirement benefits, barred her from future government employment, directed her to pay the complainant the excess amount collected (P324,475.00), and ordered the Legal Division of the OCA to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Elizabeth R. Tengco is guilty of gross dishonesty and grave misconduct. Whether respondent failed to issue original official receipts and properly remit collected fees. Whether respondent is liable for the excess fees collected from the complainant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Elizabeth R. Tengco guilty of gross dishonesty and grave misconduct. The Court ordered the forfeiture of her retirement benefits, barred her from future government employment, directed the remittance of unremitted filing fees to the MTC of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, and ordered her to pay the complainant the excess fees collected. The Legal Division of the OCA was directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross dishonesty and grave misconduct: The Court found that respondent Tengco committed grave misconduct which was grossly prejudicial to the administration of justice. She used her position to exact a tremendous amount from a complainant and misappropriated money intended for the government. The Court noted that the Manual for Clerks of Courts mandates that all fees collected shall accrue to the general fund and be deposited daily to the nearest Land Bank of the Philippines branch for the account of the Judiciary Fund. Respondent violated this by failing to duly account for the collected filing fees. Furthermore, she violated Section 3 of the Code of Conduct of Court Personnel by allegedly altering, falsifying, destroying, or mutilating records, as evidenced by the purported copies of Official Receipts that did not actually exist. The Court emphasized that presenting a list of computation of alleged expenses or fees paid by the complainant, when the actual fees should have been significantly lower, constituted dishonesty and Grave Misconduct. On the failure to issue original official receipts and properly remit collected fees: The Court found that respondent violated Supreme Court (SC) Circular No. 26-97 for failing to issue original receipts and furnishing only photocopies. The circular mandates that collecting officials must promptly issue official receipts for all monies received. Respondent's explanation that she needed to record payments in the books was not a valid justification for disregarding this directive. Moreover, respondent violated SC Circular No. 22-94, which provides guidelines for the proper accounting and control of collections. Specifically, she failed to report the loss of official receipts as required by the circular. The Court highlighted that Section 7, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that the clerk of court shall safely keep all records, papers, files, exhibits, and public property committed to her charge and is liable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of said funds and properties. The financial audit revealed that the receipts for the criminal cases filed by the complainant were missing, and no steps were taken by respondent to report the loss. On the liability for excess fees collected: The Court determined that respondent assessed and collected filing fees amounting to ₱400,000.00, whereas the correct amount should have been only ₱75,525.00, based on SC Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004. This difference of ₱324,475.00 eliminated any possibility that the wrong assessment was made in good faith. The Court concluded that respondent kept the filing fees in her custody and misappropriated them, as she failed to submit monthly reports or proof of remittances for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF), the Supreme Court Aid to Legal Services (SAJ) Fund, and the General Fund during the period of her accountability. The Court stated that Clerks of Court are not supposed to keep funds in their custody and must immediately deposit them with authorized government depositories. The respondent's disappearance and the unaccounted-for collected amounts further supported the conclusion of misappropriation.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk of Court who collects exorbitant filing fees, fails to issue original official receipts, mismanages collected funds, and absconds is guilty of gross dishonesty and grave misconduct, warranting forfeiture of retirement benefits and perpetual disqualification from public service.