Office of the Court Administrator v. Perez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This administrative case originated from a financial audit report on the books of accounts of Clarita R. Perez (respondent), Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of San Teodoro-Baco-Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro. The audit, covering July 1, 2009, to March 31, 2012, was prompted by the respondent's non-remittance of collections and non-submission of monthly financial reports. The audit revealed cash inventory shortages amounting to P34,313.80 due to undeposited collections from October 2011 to April 23, 2012. Further, she incurred shortages in collected fees and under-remittances totaling P151,412.00 across various funds (JDF, SAJF, Mediation Fund, Fiduciary Fund). The respondent also failed to collect and issue receipts for marriages solemnized by the Presiding Judge (P11,400.00), documents notarized by the Judge (P42,100.00), and cash bond fees for 28 criminal cases (P13,800.00). She also failed to submit Monthly Reports of Collections, Deposits and Withdrawals. Procedural History: On April 25, 2012, two days after the cash count, the respondent remitted her shortages and paid the uncollected marriage solemnization fees. In a Resolution dated July 9, 2012, the Court ordered the case docketed, suspended the respondent pending resolution, and imposed a P10,000.00 fine. She was directed to explain her infractions and deposit specific amounts representing unearned interest, uncollected notarial fees, and uncollected cash bond fees. The respondent filed an explanation on September 6, 2012, admitting to converting court collections for her brother's medical expenses, which she later repaid using insurance proceeds. She claimed compliance with the July 9, 2012 Resolution and attached proofs of deposit. On February 15, 2012, she filed a Motion for Early Resolution, asserting complete compliance with all directives and attaching proofs of various deposits. She admitted failing to submit reports and deposit collections on time, begging for compassion due to her 37 years of unblemished government service. In a Resolution dated September 18, 2013, the matter was referred to the OCA for evaluation. On February 4, 2014, the OCA recommended a P40,000.00 fine and a stern warning. The Petition: The Court, agreeing with the OCA, found the respondent guilty of grave misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Clerk of Court II is guilty of misconduct for her failure to timely remit judiciary funds and submit monthly reports. Whether the mitigating circumstances presented by the respondent warrant a lesser penalty.
Ruling
The Court finds Clarita R. Perez, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, San Teodoro-Baco-Puerto Galera, Oriental Mindoro, GUILTY of grave misconduct for her failure to make timely remittance of judiciary funds in her custody, and to timely submit her Monthly Reports of Collections, Deposits and Withdrawals. Accordingly, the Court orders her to PAY a FINE of P40,000.00 with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely. The Finance Division, Fiscal Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator, is DIRECTED to RELEASE the withheld salary of Clarita R. Perez after deducting therefrom the amount representing the payment of the fine.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of misconduct for failure to timely remit funds and submit reports: The Court held that Clerks of Court perform a delicate function as custodians of court funds and are accountable officers. Their failure to faithfully perform their duties makes them liable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of such funds. SC Circular No. 13-92 mandates immediate deposit of fiduciary collections. The respondent incurred delay in remittance and used the money for personal use, which constitutes a serious breach of duty and dishonesty. Her subsequent restitution did not alter the fact that she was remiss in her duties. The Court emphasized that delay in remittance deprives the Court of earned interest and constitutes dishonesty, which can carry the penalty of dismissal. On the issue of mitigating circumstances: While the Court empathized with the respondent's predicament regarding her brother's medical needs, it stated that her wrongdoing could not be excused. As custodian of funds, she was entrusted with the primary responsibility of implementing regulations regarding fiduciary funds. She was not supposed to keep these funds or appropriate them for personal use. The Court noted that the respondent should have diligently observed SC Circular No. 13-92, and her explanation regarding the non-availability of Postal Money Orders (PMOs) was contradicted by the Local Postmaster. Despite the restitution, the shortages and years of delay constitute gross neglect of duty. However, the Court acknowledged jurisprudence where penalties are mitigated due to circumstances like length of service, remorse, and family situations. Considering the respondent's 37 years of unblemished service, her remorse, full cooperation, and immediate production of shortages upon demand, the Court found a fine of P40,000.00 to be an appropriate penalty, following the OCA's recommendation and precedent.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk of Court is guilty of grave misconduct for failure to make timely remittance of judiciary funds in her custody and to timely submit her Monthly Reports of Collections, Deposits and Withdrawals. While mitigating circumstances such as length of service and remorse may be considered, the penalty of a fine is still imposed.