EN BANC
RE:
COMPLAINT
AGAINST ATTY. WILFREDO B. CLAVERIA
FOR MISAPPROPRIATION
OF JUDICIARY FUNDS.
A.
M.
No. P-02-1626
(Formerly A.M. No.
02-6-377-RTC)
July 7, 2004 x- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - x
STATE AUDITOR II
RODOLFO P. SAÑANO OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT,
Complainant,
A. M
No.
P-03-1759
(Formerly A.M. OCA
IPI No. 01-1225-P)
July 7, 2004
-versus-
ATTY. WILFREDO B.
CLAVERIA, CLERK OF COURT VI,
RTC-OCC, PILI,
CAMARINES
SUR,
Respondent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
R E S O L U T I O
N
PER
CURIAM:
Before us are two (2)
consolidated
Administrative Cases wherein Atty. Wilfredo B. Claveria is charged with
misappropriation of judiciary funds.
These cases initially
stemmed from an Affidavit dated June 23, 2000, executed by Rodolfo P.
Sañano,
State Auditor II of the Commission on Audit (COA), portions of which
read
as follows:
“1.
That
in compliance with Office Memorandum dated May 15, 2000, an examination
of the cash and accounts of the Accountable Officer, Office of the
Clerk
of Court, Regional Trial Court, 5th Judicial Region, Cadlan, Pili,
Camarines
Sur, was conducted covering the period from December 22, 1998 to March
15, 2000.
“2. That I
examined
the cash and accounts of Atty. Wilfredo B. Claveria, Clerk of Court VI
and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff, Office of the Clerk of Court,
Regional
Trial Court, 5th Judicial Region, Cadlan, Pili, Camarines Sur, being
the
Accountable Officer thereat;
“3. That to
establish
the total cash accountability of Atty. Wilfredo B. Claveria, as such
Clerk
of Court VI and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff, we availed of and made
use
of all available financial records in his Office, and checked the
official
receipts issued and used in the transactions of his office in receiving
collections, covering the period from December 22, 1998 to March 15,
2000,
as shown in the attached Schedules of Cash Accountability for each fund;chanrobles virtual law library
“4. That as a
result
of said examination, Atty. Wilfredo B. Claveria was found short of his
cash accountability by P284,610.58, as shown in the issued and served
letter
of demand dated May 22, 2000, in relation to the demand letters
previously
issued and served dated October 25, 1999 and November 4, 1999, which
were
personally received by the accountable officer on October 26, 1999,
November
8, 1999 and June 15, 2000, respectively, copies of which are hereto
attached
and marked as Annexes ‘D’,‘E’, and ‘F;chanrobles virtual law library
“5. That despite
of
the above-mentioned demand letters which had been served to Atty.
Wilfredo
B. Claveria, directing him to produce immediately the missing funds and
to explain in writing how the shortage came about, there was no reply
made
up to the present time, except for the submission of deposit slips
which
were duly validated by the bank in the amount of P34,856.80, thereby,
reducing
the shortage to P249,753.78 only;
“6. That Atty.
Wilfredo
B. Claveria, Clerk of Court VI and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff of the
Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, 5th Judicial
Region,
Cadlan, Pili, Camarines Sur, was relieved from his duties as
accountable
officer effective March 15, 2000 by the Honorable Executive Judge
Martin
Badong, Jr. in response to my letter dated March 6, 2000, copies of
which
are hereto attached and marked as Annexes ‘G’ and ‘H’;
“7. That the
corresponding
consolidated report of examination of the cash and accounts of Atty.
Wilfredo
B. Claveria together with the supporting schedules of cash
accountability
for each fund were accomplished and submitted to the COA Regional
Director
through the Provincial Auditor, Province of Camarines Sur, a copy of
which
is hereto attached and marked as Annex ‘I’ and made an integral part of
this affidavit;[1]
The Regional Office No.
V of the COA submitted to the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon
(Deputy Ombudsman for brevity), a letter dated July 2, 2000, informing
the latter that based on the findings of State Auditor Sañano,
respondent
appears to be guilty of Malversation of Public Funds; and
recommending
the filing of appropriate criminal charges against respondent Claveria.[2]
In deference to the
provisions of Section 6, Article VIII of the Constitution and in
consonance
with the rulings of the Supreme Court in Sanz Maceda vs. Vasquez[3]
and Dolalas vs. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao,[4]
the Deputy Ombudsman, in its Order dated August 13, 2001,[5]
referred the case to us through the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA).
The case was docketed as OCA I.P.I. No. 01-1225-P.cralaw:red
In an Indorsement dated
November 20, 2001, the OCA directed respondent to file his comment on
the
affidavit executed by State Auditor Sañano.[6]
Respondent failed to file his comment. In a subsequent tracer, dated
September
11, 2002,[7]
the OCA reiterated its directive for respondent to file his comment but
respondent continued to defy said order.cralaw:red
Meanwhile, acting on
the same affidavit executed by State Auditor Sañano, the Fiscal
Monitoring Division, Court Management Office (FMD-CMO) of the OCA sent
an Audit Team to Pili, Camarines Sur to conduct a financial audit on
the
books of account of respondent. The audit was conducted between
February
18, 2002 and March 1, 2002.cralaw:red
In a Memorandum, dated
June 17, 2002, addressed to Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez,
the
FMD-CMO reported that there was indeed a shortage in the various court
funds under the responsibility of Atty. Claveria, to wit:chanrobles virtual law library
Sheriffs’
Trust
Fund
(STF)
P 1,349.95chanrobles virtual law library
Sheriffs’ General
Fund
(SGF)
P 2,286.60chanrobles virtual law library
Judiciary
Development
Fund
(JDF)
P 69,408.13chanrobles virtual law library
Clerk of Court
General
Fund
(CCGF)
P 52,400.45chanrobles virtual law library
Fiduciary Fund
(FF)
P 158,952.50
P 284,397.63
According to the
FMD-CMO
report, Atty. Claveria admitted that he appropriated the missing funds
for his personal use and expressed willingness to restitute the same.[8]
In a Resolution dated
July 24, 2002, we resolved to docket the FMD-CMO report as a complaint
against Atty. Wilfredo B. Claveria,[9]
and directed respondent to explain in writing why no administrative
sanction
should be imposed upon him for misappropriation of judiciary funds.[10]
In addition, we directed the FMO of the OCA to compute the actual
amount
of withheld salaries and other allowances of respondent and deduct
therefrom
the total amount of P284,397.63 to satisfy the shortages incurred by
him;[11]
and the Legal Office of the OCA to file appropriate criminal
charges
against respondent as a result of the financial audit.[12]
On September 13, 2002,
respondent filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Submit Explanation.[13]
We granted the motion in a Resolution dated December 9, 2002.[14]
The OCA issued a certification that as of October 29, 2003, it has yet
to receive the required explanation or comment of respondent on the
charge
filed against him.[15]chanrobles virtual law library
On August 14, 2003,
the OCA submitted a report, denominated as OCA IPI No. 01-1225-P, on
its
evaluation of the instant administrative matter. Noting respondent’s
continued
defiance of the Court’s directive for him to file his comment, the OCA
recommended that respondent be dismissed from the service with
forfeiture
of retirement benefits and leave credits to which he may be entitled,
if
any, with prejudice to his re-employment in any branch of the
Government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations.[16]
On September 3, 2003,
we issued a Resolution consolidating OCA IPI No. 01-1225-P and A.M. No.
P-02-1626, it appearing that both administrative matters stemmed from
one
and the same affidavit filed by State Auditor Sañano.[17]
On November 24, 2003,
we issued a Resolution requiring the re-docketing of OCA IPI No.
01-1225-P
as a regular administrative matter.[18]
OCA IPI No. 01-1225-P was later re-docketed as A.M. No. P-03-1759.chanrobles virtual law library
We agree with the observations
and recommendations of the OCA.cralaw:red
Respondent was given
enough opportunity to explain his side. As earlier stated, the OCA
issued
two directives requiring him to file his comment while we issued a
Resolution
directing him to explain in writing why no administrative sanction
should
be imposed upon him. These orders were issued in a span of almost ten
months
and were all duly received by respondent. This period is more than
sufficient
for respondent to answer and refute the truthfulness of the charges
against
him. Respondent ignored these directives and chose to remain silent on
the charges against him.cralaw:red
The natural instinct
of a man is to resist an unfounded claim or imputation and defend
himself,
for it is totally against human nature to remain silent and say nothing
in the face of false accusations.[19]
Silence in such cases is almost always construed as an implied
admission
of the truth thereof.[20]
Thus, in the absence of any compelling reason to hold otherwise, we
take
respondent’s silence as a waiver to file his comment and an
acknowledgment
of the truthfulness of the charges against him.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent failed to
live up to the standards of honesty and integrity expected of an
officer
of the court. In Office of the Court Administrator vs. Galo,[21]
we held that:
“We have said time and
again that those involved in the administration of justice from the
highest
official to the lowest clerk must live up to the strictest standards of
honesty and integrity in the public service bearing in mind that the
image
of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official
or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat. More particularly,
we have repeatedly warned Clerks of Court, being next in rank to judges
in courts of justice, that dishonesty, particularly that amounting to
malversation
of public funds will not be countenanced as they definitely reduce the
image of courts of justice to mere havens of thievery and corruption.
Hence,
as custodian of court funds and revenues, Clerks of Court have always
been
reminded of their duty to immediately deposit the various funds
received
by them to the authorized government depositories for they are not
supposed
to keep funds in their custody. For those who have fallen short of
their
accountabilities, we have not hesitated to impose the ultimate penalty.
This Court had never and will never tolerate nor condone any conduct
which
would violate the norms of public accountability, and diminish, or even
tend to diminish, the faith of the people in the justice system.”[22]
The failure of respondent
to turn over the money deposited with him and to explain and present
evidence
thereon constitute gross dishonesty, grave misconduct and malversation
of public funds for which dismissal from the service with forfeiture of
all leave credits and of retirement privileges and with prejudice to
reappointment
are clearly appropriate.[23]
Moreover, in Himalin
vs. Balderian, we held that:
“A
resolution
of this Court requiring comment on an administrative complaint against
officials and employees of the judiciary is not to be construed as a
mere
request from the Court. On the contrary, respondents in administrative
cases are to take such resolutions seriously by commenting on all
accusations
or allegations against them as it is their duty to preserve the
integrity
of the judiciary. Any indifference to such resolutions has never been
tolerated
by this Court."[24]chanrobles virtual law library
for which respondent
must
be fined for contempt of court.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, we
find respondent GUILTY of gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and
malversation
of public funds. He is DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture
of all his accrued retirement benefits, leave credits except those
already
earned, and other privileges, if any, with prejudice to re-employment
in
any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government, including
government-owned
or controlled corporations.chanrobles virtual law library
Furthermore, we find
respondent Atty. Wilfredo B. Claveria GUILTY of Contempt of Court and
he
is fined the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) to be paid
separately
out of his earned leave credits.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, C.J., Puno,
Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, and
Tinga,
JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo of A.M. No. 01-1225-P, pp. 6-7.
[2]
Id., p. 5.
[3]
221 SCRA 464.
[4]
265 SCRA 819.
[5]
Rollo of A.M. No. 01-1225-P, p. 2.
[6]
Id., p. 39.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Id., p. 40.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
Rollo of A.M. No. P-02-1626, pp. 3-8.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Docketed as A.M. No. P-02-1626, formerly docketed as A.M. No.
02-6-377-RTC.
[10]
Rollo of A.M. No. P-02-1626, p. 9.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
The Financial Management Office-OCA earlier recommended the withholding
of salaries and other benefits of Atty. Claveria beginning June 15,
1999
until December 31, 2000 for his failure to submit monthly reports of
his
collections, deposits and withdrawals. He was excluded from the payroll
effective January 1, 2001.
[12]
Rollo of A.M. No. P-02-1626, pp. 9-10.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Id., p. 14.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
Id., p. 15.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
Id., p. 20.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
Rollo of A.M. No. 01-1225-P, pp. 41-45.
[17]
Rollo of A.M. No. P-02-1626, p. 18.
[18]
Id., p. 24.chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
Grefaldeo vs. Lacson, 293 SCRA 524, 528 (1998).
[20]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
314 SCRA 705, 711 (1999).
[22]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
Id., p. 712.chanrobles virtual law library
[24]
A.M. No. MTJ-03-1504, August 26, 2003. |