EN BANC
LAURENTE C.
ILAGAN,
Complainant,
A.
M.
No. P-04-1858
(Formerly OCA
IPI No. 00-890-P)
August 17, 2004 - versus -
MINDA G. AMAR,
CLERK OF COURT II,
MCTC-KAPALONG,DAVAO DEL NORTE,
Respondent.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
R E S O L U T I O
N
PER
CURIAM:
In a Complaint filed on
May 12, 2000, Atty. Laurente C. Ilagan of the Law Firm of Ilagan, Te,
Escudero,
Laguindam & Jocom, charges Clerk of Court II Minda G. Amar of
Irregularity,
Abuse of Authority, and, possible, Malversation of Funds.
Atty. Ilagan alleges
that their law firm represented accused Roda and Milagros Calimpong in
Criminal Cases Nos. 3664-99 and 3667-99 to 3672-99 for Estafa, filed
before
the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Kapalong, Davao del
Norte.
On July 30, 1999, the accused, through Atty. Cresdan Bangoy, posted
bail
in the amount of P100,000.00, for which respondent issued Official
Receipt
No. 10576958.[1]
The cases were tried by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagum City
(Branch
I), and were dismissed on September 28, 1999. The dismissal
became
final on October 12, 1999, and entry of judgment was made on March 13,
2000.[2]
As a result of the dismissal
of the cases, Atty. Bangoy executed a Special Power of Attorney in
favor
of Guillermo Villamil in order to withdraw the bail amount posted by
the
accused. Despite follow-ups, respondent did not release said
amount.cralaw:red
Per 1st Indorsement
dated June 19, 2000, issued by the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA),
the complaint was referred to respondent, who was required to comment
thereon
within ten (10) days from receipt.[3]
Having failed to file any comment, Deputy Court Administrator Jose P.
Perez,
on April 10, 2001, required respondent to file her comment anew within
a non-extendible period of five (5) days.[4]
Again, respondent failed to file any comment.cralaw:red
On April 30, 2002, respondent
filed an application for Gratuity Benefits under Republic Act (R.A.)
No.
1616, as amended.[5]
Thus, on March 13, 2003, the matter was referred to Atty. Wilhelmina D.
Geronga, Officer-in-Charge of the OCA Legal Office, for initial
assessment.[6]chanrobles virtual law library
On April 21, 2003, Court
Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. recommended that respondent be
required, for the last time, to file her comment to the complaint
within
ten (10) days from receipt. It was also recommended that the
letter
requiring respondent to comment should be coursed through the Presiding
Judge of the MCTC, Kapalong-Talaingod-Maniki, Kapalong, Davao del
Norte,
who would be required to certify whether it was received by respondent.[7]
On May 15, 2003, the
Court received a letter from Milagrosa and Roda Calimpong, seeking
assistance
in the refund of their bail bond.[8]
On June 11, 2003, respondent,
through a letter, informed the OCA that she was not able to reply to
the
complaint against her because Atty. Laurente Ilagan, counsel of the
accused,
had already died.[9]
Respondent attached a letter from Atty. Jonathan Jocom of the
Davao
City Law Firm of Te, Laguindam, Jocom & Zarate, informing the Court
that respondent has already released the amount of P100,000.00.[10]chanrobles virtual law library
In its Resolution dated
August 6, 2003, the Court required respondent to file her comment
within
ten (10) days from receipt, otherwise, the complaint shall be resolved
based on the evidence on record, while respondent’s letter, dated June
11, 2003, was noted.[11]
The Resolution was coursed through Judge Justino G. Aventurado,
Presiding
Judge of the MCTC, Kapalong-Talaingod-Maniki, Kapalong, Davao del
Norte,
who, on September 12, 2003, informed the Court that “Amar has long been
found to have misappropriated the said amount,” and that “there is no
more
money in the custody of the court or deposited in the bank for the
release
to Mrs. Milagrosa Calimpong.”[12]
Judge Aventurado also certified that respondent received the Court’s
Resolution
dated August 6, 2003.[13]
Thereafter, Mrs. Milagrosa
Calimpong again wrote the Court saying that the money was deposited in
the Land Bank, Tagum City Branch under Account No. 0341-0948-87.
Mrs. Calimpong was of the belief that her money is still in said bank
account.[14]
Finally, in a letter
addressed to the OCA Legal Office, respondent replied that, per Atty.
Jonathan
Jocom’s letter dated June 10, 2003, she had already remitted the amount
sought to be collected by Mrs. Calimpong.[15]
Respondent also sought the Court’s indulgence and consideration in
granting
her application for gratuity benefits as she has faithfully served as
Clerk
of Court of MCTC, Kapalong-Talaingod-Maniki for twenty nine (29) years,
and she has been “very sick and is always on medication due to
diabetes,
had become blind and partially crippled due to arthritis.”[16]
The case was then referred
to the OCA for evaluation, report, and recommendation; and in its
Memorandum dated March 30, 2004, Court Administrator Velasco, Jr.,
recommended
that (1) respondent be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of
her
retirement benefits, and that she be barred from re-employment in any
government
agency, including government owned and controlled corporations;
and
(2) the OCA be directed to (a) initiate criminal charges for
Malversation
of Public Funds against respondent; and (b) to furnish Mrs. Calimpong a
copy of respondent’s letter dated June 11, 2003, and Atty. Jonathan
Jocom’s
letter dated June 10, 2003.[17]chanrobles virtual law library
In recommending the
penalty of dismissal, OCA reasons out, thus:
Ms. Amar’s
failure to produce the money when it was demanded from her in February
2000 raised the presumption that she misappropriated the money, making
her liable for malversation of public funds. In fact, she was
able
to return the money only after more than three (3) years.
Furthermore,
she was not able to satisfactorily explain why she was not able to
return
the money immediately and why it took her more than three (3) years to
do so. (Rollo, pp. 53-54)
In A.M. No.
01-10-259-MTC
(Re: Partial Audit Findings on the Books of Accounts of the Past and
Present
Clerks of Court MTCC-Kaputian Island Garden City of Samal [IGCS],
MTCC-Bakak,
IGCS, MCTC, Kapalong-Talaingod, Davao del Norte, and MTC, Asuncion,
Davao
Del Norte) the Fiduciary Fund of MCTC, Kapalong-Talaingod Davao Del
Norte,
of which Ms. Amar was formerly the Clerk of Court, is still being
audited.
The records, principally the bank books, gathered by the audit team
readily
shows the infraction of Ms. Amar.chanrobles virtual law library
The P100,000.00 was
paid on 30 July 1999 (Rollo, p. 3) but the bank book shows that an
amount
of P100,000.00 was deposited only on 04 August 1999. More
significantly,
on 12 October 1999 the criminal cases were dismissed and Entry of
Judgment
was made on 13 March 2000. (Rollo, p.4) As early as February 2000
the complainant was already seeking the release of the money.
However,
the bank book shows that between October 1999 and March 2000 the
account
balance never came close to P100,000.00 -- the highest being P29,880.26
for 06 October 1999. In the month of February 2000 the balance
was
only P13,923.31. Evidently, Ms. Amar being the accountable
officer,
misappropriated the cash bond of Milagros and Roda Calimpong.[18]
The Court agrees with
the findings of the OCA except as to the recommended penalty.cralaw:red
As Clerk of Court of
the MCTC, Kapalong-Talaingod-Maniki, respondent performs very delicate
functions. One of these is to act as a cashier and disbursement
officer
of the Court.[19]
She collects and receives all monies paid as legal fees, deposits,
fines,
and dues; controls the disbursement of funds appropriated by the
provincial
and city governments as aid to the Court; and disburses funds quarterly
allocated by the Supreme Court to the branches upon the direction and
approval
of the Executive Judge.[20]chanrobles virtual law library
With regard to the collection
of bail bonds and other fiduciary collections, Administrative Circular
No. 13-92,[21]
specifically directs the Clerk of Court to deposit immediately all
collections
upon receipt thereof with the authorized government depository bank
(Land
Bank of the Philippines). Should there be no Land Bank of the
Philippines
branch in the locality, the Clerk of Court shall deposit all
collections
with any rural bank in the area, informing the Accounting Division of
the
Supreme Court.cralaw:red
In the present case,
the records show that Atty. Bangoy, in behalf of Roda and Milagros
Calimpong,
remitted the P100,000.00 bail bond fee to respondent on July 30, 1999.[22]
After having received the amount, respondent should have deposited such
amount immediately with the Land Bank of the Philippines, Tagum City
Branch,
per Administrative Circular No. 13-92. The deposit book of
the Fiduciary Fund of the MCTC, Kapalong, however, does not reflect any
deposit made during or within such period.[23]
Instead, a deposit in an amount of P100,000.00 was made only on August
14, 1999,[24]
or two weeks after respondent received the bail bond fee from Atty.
Bangoy.
Respondent’s failure to follow the procedure and directives of
Administrative
Circular No. 13-92 constitutes a violation thereof.cralaw:red
Worse, respondent even
failed to return the money to the accused when it was demanded from her
some time in February 2000. It was only on June 10, 2003 that
Atty.
Jonathan Jocom certified that respondent already released the money to
the law firm. In fact, respondent failed to explain her failure
to
return the money to the law firm, despite notice for her to file
comment
on the charges against her. It was only after her claim for
gratuity benefits was held in abeyance that respondent had the mind to
respond to the directives of the OCA and orders of the Court.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent is a clerk
of a court of justice, an officer described as essential to the
judicial
system, whose office is the core of activities, both adjudicative and
administrative.
She occupies a position of great importance and responsibility in the
framework
of judicial administration.[25]
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. Any loss, shortage, or impairment of said funds
renders
the Clerk of Court liable thereto.[26]
And for those who have fallen short of their accountabilities, the
Court
has not hesitated to impose the ultimate penalty, for 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 will
not
be tolerated or countenanced by the Court.[27]chanrobles virtual law library
Consequently, respondent’s
failure to turn over the money deposited with her, and to explain and
present
evidence thereon, constitute gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and
even
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.[28]
Although it may appear
that the OCA recommendation that respondent be dismissed from the
service
has been rendered moot and academic, as she has already been dropped
from
the service due to her absences without leave (AWOL), it does not mean
that a dismissal of the administrative complaint against her is
warranted.
Since Atty. Ilagan filed the administrative complaint on May 12, 2000,
long before the Court resolved to officially drop her from the service
per Resolution of June 25, 2001,[29]
the Court retains the authority to resolve the administrative complaint
against respondent.[30]
WHEREFORE, respondent
Minda G. Amar is found guilty of gross dishonesty and grave
misconduct.
She is DISMISSED from the service effective June 25, 2001 with
forfeiture
of her retirement benefits except her earned leave credits, and, with
prejudice
to reemployment in any branch, instrumentality, or agency of the
government, including government-owned and controlled corporations.cralaw:red
Let the matter be referred
to the Office of the Court Administrator for possible filing of
criminal
cases, if warranted.chanrobles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide,
C.J., Puno,
Quisumbing, Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Corona, Callejo, Sr.,Tinga and Chico-Nazario,
JJ.
, concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 3.
[2]
Id., p. 4.
[3]
Id., p. 11.
[4]
Id., p. 12.
[5]
Id., p. 14.
[6]
Id., p. 13.
[7]
Id., p. 16.
[8]
Id., p. 40.
[9]
Id., p. 19.
[10]
Id., p. 20.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Id., pp. 22-23, Resolution dated August 6, 2003.
[12]
Id., p. 42.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Id., p. 65.
[14]
Id., p. 46.
[15]
Id., p. 53.
[16]
Id., p. 54.
[17]
Id., p. 73.
[18]
Id., pp. 72-73.chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
Chapter VII, Sec. B, Manual for Clerks of Court (July 1991).
[20]
Ibid., nos. 1 to 4.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
Subject: Court Fiduciary Funds (March 1, 1992).
[22]
Rollo, p. 3.chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
Id., p. 79.
[24]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[25]
Marasigan vs. Buena, A.M. No. 95-1-01-MTCC, January 5, 1998, 284 SCRA
1,
9.
[26]
Cain vs. Neri, A.M. No. P-98-1267, July 13, 1999, 310 SCRA 207, 210-211.
[27]
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Galo, A.M. No. P-93-989,
September
21, 1999, 314 SCRA 705, 711-712.
[28]
Ibid., at page 712.chanrobles virtual law library
[29]
Rollo, p. 38.chanrobles virtual law library
[30]
Cabarloc vs. Cabusora, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1256, December 15, 2000, 348
SCRA
217, 226. |