FIRST DIVISION
A.M. No. P-02-1641
January 20, 2004
RE:
MISAPPROPRIATION
OF THE JUDICIARY
FUND COLLECTIONSBY MS. JULIET C.
BANAG,
CLERK OF COURT, MTC, PLARIDEL, BULACAN, R E S O L U T I O
N
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
Respondent Juliet C. Banag
is the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Plaridel,
Bulacan.
An audit was conducted in her office on September 18, 2001. Since
respondent
was on leave that day, Ms. Evelyn Ramos, the Court Interpreter, handed
to the audit team the office's cash on hand amounting to P2,740.00. Of
this sum, P1,790.00 pertained to the Judiciary Development Fund,
P860.00
to the Clerk of Court General Fund and P90.00 to the Legal Research
Fund.
Later that day, respondent arrived at her office and turned over to the
team several stale checks in the total amount of P142,800.00,
representing
unwithdrawn confiscated bonds and fines.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The audit revealed the
following findings:
1. There was an unremitted
collection for the period of August 1, 2001 to September 16, 2001 in
the
Judiciary Development Fund in the amount of P23,477.25.cralaw:red
2. Respondent was usually
late in depositing her collections. The following table shows that the
remittances were delayed for several months:[1]
Period
of
Collectionchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Date
Remittedchan
robles virtual law libra
Amount
October 1999-December
1999chan
robles virtuaJune
19 & 22, 2000chan
robles virtual lawP
37,141.40
January 2000-April
2000chan
robles virtual law libJune
22, 2000chan
robles virtual law library 35,701.40
May 2000chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virDecember
29, 2000chan
robles virtual law li11,630.00
June 2000-December
2000chan
robles virtual laJune
25, 2001chan
robles virtual law library 74,441.60
January 2001-April
2001chan
robles virtual law libJune
28, 2001chan
robles virtual law library 44,782.35
May 2001chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtAugust
2, 2001chan
robles virtual law library 9,486.50
June 2001-July 2001chan
robles virtual law library August
14, 2001chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred21,330.40
August 2001-September
2001chan
robles virtualSeptember
17, 2001chan
robles virtual law
17,831.70
TOTALchan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law librarychan robles
virtual
law librarychan roP252.345.35
3. Respondent made
several
deposits amounting to P23,511.00 in the wrong savings account number,
namely,
Savings Account No. 159-011-65-1 instead of Savings Account No.
159-011-63-1.
It was also found that some entries in the cash book for the Judiciary
Development Fund was not certified true and correct by respondent.
4. Respondent also incurred
shortages in the Clerk of Court General Fund[2]
as follows:
Total
collections
from July 1996 to September 17, 2001 chanrobles virtuallaw libraryredP541,082.89
Less: Total
remittances
madechan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law librarychan
519,601.39
Shortages as of
September
17, 2001chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law liP
21,481.50
Less: Deposits made
after the cash countchan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law
9,054.60
Balance of
Accountabilities
(Shortage)chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual lawP
12,426.90
5. Respondent was also
late in her remittances of the collections for the Clerk of Court
General
Fund.[3]
Period
of
Collectionchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Date
Depositedchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Amount
October 1999chan
robles virtual law librarychan robOct.
19 & Nov. 24, 1999;
chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law librJune
19, 2000chan
robles virtual law librarychP18,945.60
November 1999chan
robles virtual law librarychanNov.
25 & Dec. 23, 1999;
chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law librJune
19, 2000chan
robles virtual law librarychan13,343.75
December 1999chan
robles virtual law librarychanDec.
23, 2000 & June 19, 2000chan
robles vir3,820.40
January 2000-May 2000chan
robles virtual law libJune
22, 2000chan
robles virtual law librarychan17,605.30
June 2000chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles vJuly
3 & Dec. 28, 2000chan
robles virtual law25,029.20
July 2000chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virDec.
28, 2000
chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law libraFeb.
16 & Aug. 9, 2001chan
robles virtual la48,180.40
August 2000-November
2000chan
robles virtualDec.
28, 2000chan
robles virtual law librarycha15,516.00
January 2001chan
robles virtual law librarychan roblJune
28, 2001chan
robles virtual law librarychan 1,436.80
February 2001-June
2001chan
robles virtual law lAugust
2, 2001chan
robles virtual law librarycha22,709.25
July 2001 &
December
2000chan
robles virtual lAugust
9 & 14, 2001chan
robles virtual law libr26,764.10
August 2001-September
17, 2001chan
robles vAugust
14, 24 & 31, 2001;
chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law librSeptember
14, 2001chan
robles virtual law libr38,824.60
TOTAL
chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law lichan robles virtual
law librarychan robles virtual law li------------------
chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law librarychan robles
virtual
law librarychan robles virtual lP232,175.40
6. Respondent cancelled
several official receipts but the amounts reflected therein were
nevertheless
deposited.[4]
These receipts are:
Date
Issued chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
O.R.
No. chan
robles virtual law libraAmount
July 3, 2000chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred12437661chan
robles virtual law librP
3,000.00
July 3, 2000chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred12437662chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred3,000.00
July 3, 2000chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred12437663chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred3,000.00
July 3, 2000chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred12437664chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred3,000.00
July 3, 2000chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred12437665chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred3,000.00
July 3, 2000chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred12437666chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred3,000.00
July 3, 2000chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred12437667chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred3,000.00
TOTAL
chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law librarychan robles
virtual
law libra---------------
chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law librarychan robles
virtual
law librP20,500.00
7. Although the audit
team
was not able to finish its examination of the books of accounts for the
Fiduciary Fund, it found that respondent was delayed in her remittances
of the said fund as follows:[5]
Period
of
Collectionchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Date
Remittedchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Amount
August 13, 1998chanrobles virtuallaw libraryredSeptember
2, 4 & 7, 1998chan
robles virtualP
40,000.00
August 14, 1998chanrobles virtuallaw libraryredSeptember
30, 1998chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred28,000.00
August 14, 17 &
28, 1998chan
robles virtualOctober
19 & 30, 1998;
chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual laNovember
4, 1998 chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred46,750.00
September 1-23, 1998chan
robles virtual laNovember
13, 1998chan
robles virtual law libra107,873.00
September 25, 1998
to
November 3, 1998chan
robles virtual law libNovember
13, 1998chan
robles virtual law librar114,100.00
July 13, 2000chan
robles virtual law library September
14, 2000chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred36,000.00
July 31, 2000chan
robles virtual law library September
22, 2000chan
robles virtual law library 6,000.00
TOTAL
chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law librarychan robles
virtual
law librarychan robles virt--------------------
chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law librarychan robles
virtual
law librarychan robles vir P378,723.00
Based on the foregoing
findings, this Court resolved, among others, to:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) IMMEDIATELY RELIEVE
MS. Juliet Banag of her duties and responsibilities as account officer
of MTC, Plaridel, Bulacan:
(b) DIRECT: (1) Ms.
Banag to: (aa) EXPLAIN in writing within ten (10) days from notice why
no disciplinary sanction should be imposed upon her for violating the
circulars
issued by the Court as well as accounting and auditing rules and
regulations;
(bb) RESTITUTE the shortages incurred for COC General Fund in the
amount
of P12,246.90; and (cc) SUBMIT a report within ten days from notice
whether
or not the misposted remittance of JDF collections amounting to
P23,511.00
to Account No. 159-011-65-1 instead of Account No. 159-011-63-1 has
been
corrected otherwise the latter amount will also form part of her
accountability;
and (2) the Financial Management Office to WITHHOLD the salaries and
other
allowances of Ms. Banag to cover possible shortages that may be found
in
her Fiduciary Fund pending outcome of the audit x x x[6]
Respondent filed a letter-explanation,[7]
wherein she stated that beginning 2000, when the expanded jurisdiction
of lower courts took effect, she began to encounter problems because of
the heavy caseload in her office. Aside from the numerous cases, she
also
had to attend to monetary matters relevant to the Judiciary Development
Fund (JDF) and Clerk of Court General Fund (CCGF). She admitted that
she
lacked training and knowledge as to accounting rules and procedure. It
was only in 2001 when, during a seminar in Subic, Olongapo City, she
fully
understood the Supreme Court Circulars relative to the collection,
computation
and allocation of the JDF and CCGF as well as the preparation of
reports
relative thereto.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent alleges that
there were no shortages incurred for the CCGF in the amount of
P12,426.90.
Rather, the said amount comprised payments for fines for which the
corresponding
Official Receipts Nos. 12437940-12437947 were issued. Unfortunately,
she
misallocated the said funds through sheer inadvertence, but she
immediately
corrected the error upon discovery thereof by issuing another set of
eight
checks payable to the JDF with Official Receipt Nos. 1489729 to
14890736.
Due to time constraints and pressure of work attending trials and other
court business, she was unable to indicate in the Cash Book of the CCGF
the cancellation made in the corresponding entries reflected thereat.
The
said amounts were included in the Cash Book of the CCGF without the
corresponding
indication of cancellation. Consequently, the same were included in the
computation made by the auditing team.cralaw:red
In response to the directive
to submit a report on whether or not the misposted remittance of the
JDF
collections amounting to P23,511.00 to Account No. 1590011-65-1 instead
of Account No. 159-011-63-1 has been corrected, respondent maintains
that
she took immediate steps and coordinated with the Manager of the Land
Bank,
Malolos Branch. During her last follow-up, she found that the Branch
Manager
she was dealing with had been transferred, thereby causing delay in the
correction of the misposting of funds.cralaw:red
In a Resolution dated
April 3, 2002,[8]
the Court referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA)
for evaluation report and recommendation.cralaw:red
In its report,[9]
the OCA found respondent's explanations unsatisfactory. First, the
delays
in the remittances of collections were not only for several days but
for
months, even years. Second, the law expanding the jurisdiction of
Municipal
Trial Courts went into effect in 1994 and the records show that Ms.
Banag
dutifully remitted her JDF and CCGF collections up to September 1999,
hence,
there is no basis for her to lay the blame on additional work brought
about
by said statute because she was able to effectively cope with the
additional
burden up to September 1999. Third, her lack of training is no excuse
because
she should have exerted all efforts to familiarize herself with all the
facets of her work.cralaw:red
However, the OCA found
that respondent was able to clarify the issue of the shortage of
P12,426.90
in the CCGF and the misposting of P23,511.00 which was rectified by the
Land Bank.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Meanwhile, the Audit
Team updated its findings regarding the collections in the JDF and the
CCGF and found a shortage of P1,863.55 in the JDF remittances and an
over-remittance
in the CCGF of P11,441.45. It also discovered a shortage in the
Fiduciary
Fund in the amount of P7,216.00,[10]
broken down as follows:
Total
Collections
from July 2, 1996 to September 30, 2001chanrobles virtuallaw libraryredP5,344,207.40
Less: Withdrawals
made
for the same periodchan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual
3,674,723.40
Unwithdrawn Fiduciary
Fund as of September 30, 2001chan
robles virtual law librarychanP1,669,484.00
Less: Bank Balance
under
Time Deposit Account
No. 0531-0842-82chan
roblesP1,000,000.00
Current Account No.
0531-21053-15 chan
robles virtua
679,981.15
Total Depositschan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtuP1,679,981.15
Less: Unwithdrawn
Interest
Earned chan
robles virtual law l17,713.15 chan
robles virtual l
1,662,268.00
Shortage as of
September
30, 2001chan
robles virtual law librarychan robles virtual law
library P
7,216.00
The audit team also
discovered
that on July 31, 2001, respondent made a lump-sum deposit of
P600,000.00
in the Fiduciary Fund. This amount represents in part undeposited
collections
from:
Month/Yearchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Collectionschanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Depositschanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Differences
Jan-Dec. 1998chan
robles virtual law libP1,103,173.00chan
robles virtual law liP1,090,073.00chan
robles virtual law libP13,100.00
Jan-Dec. 2000chan
robles virtual law libra1,099,670.50chan
robles virtual law librar872,470.50chan
robles virtual law lib227,200.00
Jan-July 2001chan
robles
rary 477,500.00chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred150,000.00chan
robles virtual law lib327,500.00[11]
On the basis of said
Report,
the Court resolved, among others, to:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) DIRECT Ms. Juliet
C. Banag, CoC, MTC, Plaridel, Bulacan to: (1) RESTITUTE the shortages
found
in the JDF amounting to One Thousand Eight Hundred Sixty-Three and
55/100
(P1,863.55) within ten days from receipt of notice; and (2) EXPLAIN in
writing her reasons behind her lump-sum deposit of Six Hundred Thousand
Pesos (P600,000.00) on July 31, 2001 for collections in part of the
Fiduciary
Fund covering the periods January to December 1998 and January 2000 to
July 31, 2001;[12]
Respondent submitted
her Explanation,[13]
wherein she asserted that there was no shortage of P1,863.55. She
claims
that she immediately filed a letter-appeal for clarification on October
7, 2002 and a verification was made by the Court's Financial Audit Team
in connection with said sum. Upon instructions of the Audit Team, she
presented
receipts of remittances which showed that there was no misappropriation
of said amount.cralaw:red
Claiming honest inadvertence
with regard to the lump-sum deposit of P600,000.00, respondent avers
that
she kept the collections in a vault together with the documentary
exhibits
and forgot about it. She only discovered the money in an envelope when
she was looking for other folders.cralaw:red
The OCA found the explanation
unsatisfactory and recommended that respondent be found criminally and
administratively liable.cralaw:red
On May 22, 2003, respondent
manifested[14]
her willingness to have the case submitted for decision on the basis of
the pleadings filed.cralaw:red
Clerks of Court are
officers of the law who perform vital functions in the prompt and sound
administration of justice.[15]
Their office is the hub of adjudicative and administrative orders,
processes
and concerns.[16]
They perform a delicate function as designated custodians of the
court's
funds, revenues, records, properties and premises.[17]
As such, they generally are also the treasurer, accountant, guard and
physical
plant manager thereof.[18]
They are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of
such
funds and property.[19]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section B (4) of Supreme
Court Circular No. 50-95 on the collection and deposit of court
fiduciary
funds mandates that:
(4) All collections
from bail bonds, rental deposits, and other fiduciary funds shall be
deposited
within twenty-four (24) hours by the Clerk of Court concerned upon
receipt
thereof with the Land Bank of the Philippines.cralaw:red
Along the same vein,
SC Circular Nos. 13-92 and 5-93 provide the guidelines for the proper
administration
of court funds. SC Circular No. 13-92 commands that all fiduciary
collections
"shall be deposited immediately by the Clerk of Court concerned, upon
receipt
thereof, with an authorized government depository bank." More
explicitly,
Section 3 in relation to Section 5 of SC Circular No. 5-93 which
designated
the Land Bank as the authorized government depositary of the JDF,
states:
3. Duty of the Clerks
of Court, Officers-in-Charge or accountable officers. – The Clerks of
Court,
Officers-in-Charge, or their accountable duly authorized
representatives
designated by them in writing, who must be accountable officers, shall
receive the Judiciary Development Fund collections, issue the proper
receipt
therefore, maintain a separate cash book properly markeddeposit
such
collections in the manner herein prescribed and render the proper
Monthly
Report of Collections for said Fund.cralaw:red
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
5. Systems and Procedures:
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
c. In the RTC, SDC,
MeTC, MTCC, MTC, and SCC. – The daily collections for the Fund in these
courts shall be deposited every day with the local or nearest LBP
branch
"For the account of the Judiciary Development Fund, Supreme Court,
Manila
– Savings Account No. 159-01163; or if depositing daily is not
possible,
deposits of the Fund shall be every second and third Fridays and at the
end of every month, provided, however, that whenever collections for
the
Fund reach P500.00, the same shall be deposited immediately even before
the days before indicated.cralaw:red
Where there is no LBP
branch at the station of the judge concerned, the collections shall be
sent by postal money order payable to the Chief Accountant of the
Supreme
Court at the latest before 3:00 of that particular week.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x
x
x x
x
x x x
d. Rendition of Monthly
Report. – Separate "Monthly Report of Collections" shall be regularly
prepared
for the Judiciary Development Fund, which shall be submitted to the
Chief
Accountant of the Supreme Court within ten (10) days after the end of
every
month, together with the duplicate of the official receipts issued
during
such month covered and validated copy of the Deposit Slips.cralaw:red
The aggregate total
of the Deposit Slips for any particular month should always equal to,
and
tally with, the total collections for that month as reflected in the
Monthly
Report of Collections.cralaw:red
If no collection is
made during any month, notice to that effect should be submitted to the
Chief Accountant of the Supreme Court by way of a formal letter within
ten (10) days after the end of every month. (Emphasis ours)
The Audit Report of
the OCA clearly shows that respondent failed to comply with the
mandates
of the said Circulars. While she subsequently was able to account for
the
shortages, her restitution thereof was belatedly done. It is the duty
of
clerks of court to perform their responsibilities faithfully, so that
they
can fully comply with the circulars on deposits of collections.[20]
They are reminded to deposit immediately, with authorized government
depositaries,
the various funds they have collected because they are not authorized
to
keep those funds in their custody.[21]
The unwarranted failure to fulfill these responsibilities deserves
administrative
sanction and not even the full payment, as in this case, of the
collection
shortages will exempt the accountable officer from liability.[22]
Respondent does not
dispute her failings as custodian of the courts funds. However, she
asserts
that her failure to perform her tasks efficiently was borne neither of
malice nor bad faith but of an increased workload and responsibilities.
While the Court is inclined to be benevolent to respondent, its
sympathy
is somewhat dampened by the fact that she has been less than forthright
in pleading difficulty in her expanded functions and responsibilities.
In this regard, the OCA correctly observed that the law expanding the
jurisdiction
of Municipal Trial Courts took effect in 1994, while the records show
that
respondent dutifully remitted her JDF and CCGF collections up to
September
1999. There is, therefore, no basis for her to lay the blame on a
heavier
workload brought about by said statute because she was able to
effectively
cope with the additional burden up to September 1999.cralaw:red
It may be that respondent
may have had internal problems with her staff particularly with regard
to their absences. However, she could not put all blame on them and be
absolved of any liability because at the root of her woes is her faulty
court management. As clerk of court, respondent is the court's
administrative
officer who must ensure that her subordinates are performing their
tasks
properly, promptly and efficiently.[23]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, while the Court
commiserates with her travails, these cannot fully excuse her
continuous
violation of pertinent rules and regulations over a long period of
time.
The Court has to enforce what is mandated by the law and to impose a
reasonable
punishment for violations thereof.[24]
Aside from being the custodian of the court's funds and revenues,
property
and premises, a clerk of court is also entrusted with the primary
responsibility
of correctly and effectively implementing regulations regarding
fiduciary
funds.[25]
Safekeeping of funds and collections is essential to an orderly
administration
of justice and no protestation of good faith can override the mandatory
nature of the circulars designed to promote full accountability for
government
funds.[26]
Respondent's delay in
the remittance of her cash collections constitutes a gross neglect of
duty
under the Civil Service Law and the Omnibus Rules implementing it.[27]
However, in determining the applicable penalty in this case, the Court
takes into consideration the lack of bad faith,[28]
the fact that she fully remitted all her collections and that she has
no
outstanding accountabilities.[29]
Bearing in mind the attendant circumstances, and for humanitarian
considerations,
we find the imposition of a fine of P20,000.00 a sufficient penalty.[30]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, Juliet C. Banag, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial
Court
of Plaridel, Bulacan, is FINED the amount of P20,000.00 and is STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt
with
more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Panganiban, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 4.
[2]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id.
[4]
Id., p. 5.
[5]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id., p. 14.
[7]
Id., pp. 22-25.
[8]
Id., pp. 56-57.
[9]
Id., pp. 58-62.
[10]
Id., p. 64.
[11]
Id., p. 65.
[12]
Id., pp. 67-68.
[13]
Id., pp. 98-100.
[14]
Id., p. 235.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Reyes-Domingo v. Morales, A.M. No. P-99-1285, 4 October 2000, 342 SCRA
6; Escañan v. Monterola, A.M. P-99-1347, 6 February 2001, 351
SCRA
228.
[16]
Solidbank v. Capoon, 351 Phil. 936 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Section B, Chapter I, 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, p. 4;
OCA
v. Marcelo, A.M. No. P-00-1415-MeTC, 416 Phil. 356 (2001).
[18]
Section B, Chapter I, 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, p. 4.
[19]
Nones v. Ormita, A.M. P-01-1532, 9 October 2002, 390 SCRA 519.
[20]
Re: Financial Audit Conducted on the Book of Accounts of Clerk of Court
Pacita T. Sendin, MTC, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, A.M. No. 01-119-MTC, 16
January
2002.
[21]
OCA v. Galo, 373 Phil. 483 (1999); Re: Report on the Judicial and
Financial
Audit of RTC – Branch 4, Panabo, Davao del Norte, 351 Phil. 1 (1998);
Ferriols
v. Hiam, A.M. No. P-90-414, 9 August 1993, 225 SCRA 206.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
Re: Withholding of Other Emoluments of the following Clerks of Court:
Elsie
R. Remoroza of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Mauban, Quezon; Elena
P. Reformado, of the MTC OF Guinayangan, Quezon; Eugenio Sto. Tomas of
the MTC of Cabuyao, Laguna; Maura D. Campano, of the MTC of San Jose,
Occidental
Mindoro; Eleanor D. Flores, of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC)
of Taytay, Palawan; and Jesusa P. Benipayo of the MCTC of Ligao, Albay,
A.M. No. 01-4-133-MTC, 26 August 2003, citing Re: Report of Regional
Coordinator
Felipe B. Kalalo on Alleged Anomalies Involving JDF Collections in
MTCC,
Angeles City, and MCTC, Minalin, Pampanga, 326 Phil. 703, (1996).
[23]
Report on the On-The-Spot Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal
Circuit
Trial Court, Teresa-Baras, Rizal, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1397, 17 September
2002,
389 SCRA 1, 15.
[24]
OCA v. Quizon, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1636, 13 February 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[25]
Pace v. Leonardo, A.M. No. P-03-1675, 6 August 2003.
[26]
OCA v. Fortaleza, A.M. No. P-01-1524, 29 July 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
OCA v. Besa, A.M. No. P-02-1551, 11 September 2002, 388 SCRA 558, 565;
Section 52 b (1), Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service.
[28]
Section 53 (a), Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[29]
Re: Withholding of Other Emoluments of the Following Clerks of Court:
Elsie
C. Remoroza, et al., supra.
[30]
Re: Non-Submission of Judge Demasira M. Baute, (former Clerk of Court)
Shari'a Circuit Court, Kapatagan, Lanao del Norte, of the Official
Cashbooks
for Fiduciary Fund, Judiciary Development Fund, Sheriff Trust Fund and
Other Related Documents, 325 Phil. 516 (1996). |