A.M. No. P-06-2148. March 04, 2009 (Case Brief / Digest)

### Title: Office of the Court Administrator vs. Jingkey Nolasco

### Facts:

This case revolves around Jingkey B. Nolasco, the Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in San Jose, Antique, Philippines. The case initiated from a 2005 Commission on Audit (COA) examination that discovered financial irregularities under Nolasco’s tenure as the financial custodian of the court. Specifically, the COA found undeposited collections totaling P563,683.35 and undocumented or unauthorized withdrawals amounting to P128,317.64 from the Fiduciary Fund Account (FFA). As a result, upon COA’s advice, Nolasco was relieved of her financial custodian duties, and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) launched its investigation.

The OCA audit identified additional shortages bringing the grand total to P787,880.59 across various funds. Specific instances of unauthorized withdrawals from the FFA were detailed, including overdrawn amounts and withdrawals without supporting documents or prior deposits. The investigation found that withdrawal slips and passbook entries were signed by both Judge Monina S. Misajon and Nolasco.

Upon being directed by the OCA to explain the shortages and unauthorized withdrawals, Nolasco acknowledged her failures and pledged restitution while putting forward explanations for the over withdrawals. Judge Misajon, however, denied authorizing the withdrawals and suggested Nolasco manipulated the withdrawal amounts for personal gains.

The case was escalated to the Supreme Court upon the recommendation of the OCA after an investigative report by Judge Rudy Castrojas, following hearings and evaluation of conflicting testimonies and evidence.

### Issues:

1. Whether Jingkey Nolasco engaged in dishonesty and misconduct by not depositing court collections and committing unauthorized withdrawals from the Fiduciary Fund.
2. Whether Judge Monina S. Misajon played a role in the unauthorized withdrawals and if she could be held administratively liable.

### Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court found Jingkey Nolasco guilty of gross dishonesty and grave misconduct. Nolasco was dismissed from service with forfeiture of retirement and other benefits, and prejudiced against reemployment in government. She was ordered to restitute P625,175.29, representing the amount of shortages in her collections. The Court also directed the initiation of criminal charges against Nolasco and retired Judge Ma. Monina S. Misajon for their involvement in the mishandling of court funds.

### Doctrine:

This case underscores the principles that clerks of courts must exhibit utmost integrity and diligence in managing court funds. It reaffirms the mandates requiring immediate deposit of court collections to authorized banks and holding accountable those who fail to comply. The decision illustrates the Court’s zero tolerance for dishonesty and misconduct within the judiciary, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding public trust in judicial systems.

### Class Notes:

– **Key Concepts:** Integrity in judiciary, immediate deposit mandate, accountability and penalties for financial irregularities.
– **Critical Statutory Provisions:**
– Court Circular No. 50-95 and Administrative Circular No. 3-2000, guiding the deposit and management of court collections.
– Revised Penal Code, Article 217 on malversation of public funds, potentially applicable for misappropriating judiciary funds.
– **Application**: Employees of the judiciary, especially those handling court funds, are held to higher standards of honesty and integrity. Failure to immediately deposit the courts’ collections, and the unauthorized use or misappropriation of these funds, constitutes grave misconduct and dishonesty, warranting severe sanctions including dismissal and forfeiture of benefits.

### Historical Background:

The case highlights the systemic issues within judicial financial management practices and the imperative measures taken by the Philippine Judiciary to rectify and prevent such malpractices. It showcases the necessity of stringent audit mechanisms and the prompt administrative and judicial response to uphold integrity and trust in the judicial system.


Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post
Filter
Apply Filters