MELENCIO S. SY, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR, TAWI-TAWI, COMPLAINANT, VS. CARMELITA S. MONGCUPA, STENO CLERK III, OIC, RTC, BRANCH 5, BONGAO, TAWI-TAWI, RESPONDENT.

This
court is both alarmed and saddened by the increasing frequency in its
exercise of its supervisory power over employees of the judiciary who
fail to meet the exacting standards of honesty, integrity and
uprightness. This is another such case.

In a letter dated November 18, 1994^[1]
addressed to the Chief Justice, the Honorable Carlito A. Eisma, who is
the Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5,
Bongao, Tawi-tawi, complained of certain anomalies in the handling of
court funds by the Officer-In-Charge (OIC) of the Office of the Clerk
of Court in the person of one Carmelita S. Mongcupa.

On
September 6, 1994, Judge Eisma wrote to Mr. Abduladi Y. Usman, the
Provincial Auditor of the Province of Tawi-tawi, requesting that he
formally conduct an audit of the accountabilities of Mongcupa from the
time that she was appointed as OIC in March, 1991 to August 3, 1994
when she was relieved by one Samuel A. Avestruz, Jr. The latter took
over Mongcupa’s duties in accordance with Administrative Order No.
01-94 which was issued by Judge Eisma as Acting Executive Judge.

The request was granted, and Mongcupa was audited. The audit team was
headed by one Melecio S. Sy, the Assistant Provincial Auditor of
Tawi-tawi.

In a Certification dated October 17, 1994,
prepared and signed by Assistant Provincial Auditor Sy, there was found
a shortage in the amount of P237, 084.99 which had remained unaccounted
for and unrestituted.^[2] Consequently, in a letter of even date,^[3]
Sy demanded that Mongcupa immediately produce the missing funds and
submit a written explanation within seventy two (72) hours , as to why
the shortage occurred.

We treated the report of Sy as an
administrative complaint against Mongcupa and required Mongcupa to file
her answer thereto within a ten-day period. At the same time, we placed
Mongcupa under preventive suspension.^[4]

On February 23, 1995, Mongcupa requested for an extension of thirty
(30) days for her to file her answer to the complaint. The extension
was granted in our Resolution dated March 29, 1995.^[5]

In a letter dated April 10, 1995^[6]
addressed to the Clerk of Court of the Second Division, Mongcupa
expressed willingness “to replenish the shortage of the funds, placed
in her possession or control, which occurred during her term as the
Officer-in-Charge/Acting Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Br. 5,
Bongao, Tawi-tawi. “She also requested that her unreleased salaries and
other benefits be applied on and considered partial payment of, her
obligation.

In a resolution dated October 14, 1996,^[7]
we suspended Mongcupa, effective immediately, pending the completion of
the investigation and submission of report by the Office of the Court
Administrator.

On November 14, 1996, the Office of the Court Administrator completed its report.

To date, no comment or answer has been filed by Mongcupa.

We cannot wait indefinitely for Mongcupa’s answer. Significantly, in
her letter, dated April 10, 1995, Mongcupa admitted the shortage and
expressed willingness to return the missing court funds.

In
its report, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that
Mongcupa be dismissed from the service with the corresponding
forfeiture of all retirement benefits and accrued leave credits, if
any, and disqualification from any future government employment.

We agree.

The foregoing are facts. Given the opportunity to rebut the
overwhelming evidence of her malversation of public funds, Mongcupa
chose to admit the shortage in the court funds in her custody and
pleaded for time to pay the amount that she has failed to account for.
As such, the recommendation of dismissal and forfeiture of benefits by
the Office of the Court Administrator is not without formidable basis:

“Based
on the foregoing, there is no doubt respondent committed serious
misconduct in the handling of funds. The above-stated letter, coupled
with the uncontroverted audit findings of the Provincial Auditor serves
as clear and convincing evidence to expose respondent‘s misdeed.
Despite a letter of Demand from the Provincial Auditor, requiring
respondent to submit a letter of explanation on the shortage within
seventy-two (72) [hours], we noted respondent’s failure to comply with
the same. In effect, this would constitute as prima facie evidence of
malversation, as held in the last par. of Art. 217 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by RA 1060, which provides:

‘The
failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public fund or
property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly
authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such
missing fund or property to personal uses.’

In De Guzman vs. People, it was held:

‘In
malversation, all that is necessary to prove is that the defendant
received in his possession public funds, that he could not account for
them and did not have them in his possession and that he could not give
a reasonable excuse for the disappearance of the same. An accountable
officer may be convicted of Malversation even if there is no direct
evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is that there is a
shortage in his accounts which he has not been able to explain
satisfactorily.'” ^[8]

The evidence against Mongcupa, according to the Office of the Court
Administrator, so eloquently speaks of her criminal misdeed as to
justify the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur:

“x
x x [F]or several years now, ‘the Supreme Court applies the res ipsa
loquitor [sic] principle in removing judicial officers and personnel
from office x x x.’ As can be gathered from the cases decided in this
jurisdiction, res ipsa loquitor [sic] has been defined as the [sic]
‘the thing speaks for itself’ and ‘the fact speaks for itself’ (People
vs. Valenzuela, 135 SCRA 712 and Padilla vs. Dizon, 158 SCRA 127) . It
is even asserted that in cases like the one at bar, there is no more
need for any further investigation.”^[9]

Finally,
we rule that, as the Office of the Court Administrator recommended,
Mongcupa‘s request that her unreleased salaries and benefits, be
applied to her shortage, ought to be denied.

“To
rule otherwise would be tantamount to awarding her benefits which
should have been forfeited in the first place, in view of her misdeed.
The disciplinary action taken in the case at bar should be swift and
devised in such a way as to give a STERN WARNING and GRIM REMINDER to
accountable officers of the horrible consequences and repercussions of
respondent‘s actions.”^[10]

The court is concerned about the propensity of accountable officers in
the judiciary to yield to the temptation to use public funds for
personal interests. But, as it tries to devise the appropriate action
to strengthen the moral fiber and strength of character of the
employees and officers that constitute the judiciary, this court shall
never be less strict in applying only the highest standards of
propriety, decorum, integrity, uprightness and honesty from the highest
judicial officer of the land to the humblest court employee, for the
ultimate power of this court lies in its incorruptibility.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent CARMELITA S. MONGCUPA is
hereby DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all retirement
benefits and accrued leave credits, if any, with disqualification for
re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the Government,
including government-owned or controlled corporations, without
prejudice to the filing of the appropriate criminal and/or civil
charges against her that may be warranted under the circumstances.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C. J., Padilla, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo,
Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr.,
Panganiban and Torres, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 1-2.

[2] Rollo, p. 3.

[3] Rollo, p. 4.

^[4] Resolution of the Second Division dated January 23, 1995, Rollo , pp. 19-20.

^[5] Rollo, p. 23.

^[6] Rollo, p. 35.

[7] Rollo, p. 37.

[8] Memorandum dated September 4, 1996, pp. 4-5, Rollo, pp. 32-33.

^[9] Memorandum dated November 14, 1996, p. 4, Rollo, p. 41.

[10] Memorandum dated September 4, 1996, p. 5, Rollo, p. 33.