OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. AL JAMEL E. BARATAMAN, CLERK OF COURT II, SHARI’AH CIRCUIT COURT, MARAWI CITY-SAGUIARAN-KAPAI-TAGALOAN II-PIAGAPO, LANAO DEL …

Office of the Court Administrator versus Barataman

The Case

This is an administrative disciplinary case brought by the Office of the Court Administrator against Al Jamel E. Barataman, Clerk of Court Second of the Shari'ah Circuit Court of Marawi City, Saguiaran, Kapai, Tagaloan Second District and Piagapo in Lanao del Sur. The Office of the Court Administrator charged him with Gross Misconduct constituting a violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, Serious Dishonesty, and Gross Neglect of Duty, after a financial audit of the court's books of account uncovered shortages in several judiciary funds. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the whole law on the accountability of clerks of court as custodians of court funds: the duty to issue receipts, the duty to remit promptly, the duty to report, and the rule that restitution does not wipe out administrative liability.

Procedural History

The matter began not with a complaint but with a letter-request from the Accounting Division of the Financial Management Office, prompted by Barataman's continued failure to submit the required monthly and quarterly financial reports. Acting on a travel authority and a travel order both issued in April 2024, the Fiscal Monitoring Division of the Court Management Office of the Office of the Court Administrator conducted a financial audit of the Marawi City Shari'ah Circuit Court from April 15 to 27, 2024, covering Barataman's accountabilities from November 1, 2020 to April 25, 2024. The audit team reported its findings in a memorandum dated September 30, 2024, and the Office of the Court Administrator filed that memorandum with the Supreme Court as its complaint.

The Judicial Integrity Board took up the charge. Through the Office of the Executive Director, it directed Barataman to comment, and it reiterated the directive in a tracer letter. Barataman filed no answer despite repeated directives from the Judicial Integrity Office, which treated the failure as a waiver of his right to participate and proceeded on the evidence on record. On November 26, 2025, the Officer-in-Charge of the Judicial Integrity Office issued his Report and Recommendation finding Barataman guilty on all three charges and recommending dismissal with forfeiture of benefits, perpetual disqualification, cancellation of civil service eligibility, restitution of the shortages, payment of unearned interest, and related directives. The case was then resolved by the Supreme Court itself, in an original administrative action, through this per curiam decision.

Facts

Barataman served as Clerk of Court Second of the Shari'ah Circuit Court and was the accountable officer for the Judiciary Development Fund, the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund, the Supreme Court and Office of the Court Administrator Mediation Fund, the Sheriff's Trust Fund, the Legal Research Fund and the Victim's Compensation Fund. For years he failed to submit the required monthly and quarterly financial reports on collections, deposits and withdrawals, which is what triggered the audit.

When the audit team conducted a cash examination on April 22, 2024, Barataman presented neither the cash on hand nor the most recent deposit slip. He told the team that the collections had been deposited in his personal account. The inventory of official receipts showed one booklet and seven original copies missing, including the booklet then in use for the Sheriff's Trust Fund, with the unused duplicate and triplicate copies still attached, suggesting the originals had been deliberately detached. The audit also found that he had not issued official receipts for collections relating to registrations of Muslim marriages, conversions, divorces and civil cases, and that he had collected filing fees without issuing receipts.

After crediting his partial and belated restitutions, some made through the Judiciary ePayment Solution even after the audit cut-off date, the audit team computed total shortages of 690,158 pesos and 20 centavos across the six funds, and unearned interest of 69,750 pesos and 20 centavos arising from delayed deposits, computed at six percent per annum. Barataman never filed a comment or explanation before the Judicial Integrity Office.

Issues

• Whether or not Barataman is administratively liable for Gross Misconduct constituting a violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, Serious Dishonesty, and Gross Neglect of Duty, in relation to the financial audit findings.
• Whether or not his failure to file a comment despite repeated directives amounted to a waiver of his right to participate, such that the case could be resolved on the evidence on record without violating due process.
• Whether or not his partial and belated restitution of the shortages exempts him from administrative liability.

Applicable Provisions

Canon Five, Section Nineteen of the 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel classifies the offenses charged:

Canon V. Accountability SECTION 19. Serious Offenses. — Serious Offenses include: (a) Gross Misconduct constituting violations of this Code, the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, or the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability for court officials and personnel who are members of the Bar; ... (e) Serious Dishonesty; (f) Gross Neglect of Duty.

These are the very offenses for which Barataman was charged and found liable, and they are classified as serious offenses punishable by dismissal.

Canon Five, Section Six of the same Code addresses the consequence of failing to comment:

Canon V. Accountability Section 6. Consequence of Failure to Comment. – Failure of the respondent to file a verified comment shall, unless otherwise justified, result in a waiver of participation in the proceedings, and the investigation may proceed based solely on the complaint and available evidence on record.

This provision supplied the procedural basis for resolving the case despite Barataman's silence.

Canon Five, Section Twenty-Two of the Code fixes the penalty for serious offenses:

Section 22. Penalties. – (1) If the respondent is found guilty of a Serious Offense, any of the following penalties shall be imposed: (a) Dismissal

This is the penalty provision the Court applied in disposing of the case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held Barataman liable on all three charges. It stressed that clerks of court are custodians of court funds, revenues, records, properties and premises, and are regarded as treasurer, accountant, guard and physical plant manager thereof, so that their work demands the highest degree of competence, honesty and integrity. Any shortage, misappropriation or failure to properly account for judiciary funds constitutes not only dishonesty but also gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct. The Court defined dishonesty as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud, and gross misconduct as improper or wrong conduct, grave when it involves corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard of established rules. Barataman's admission that he deposited court collections in his personal account, his unreceipted collections, his missing official receipts, and his deliberate non-remittance showed conscious intent, not mere inadvertence. His persistent failure to submit financial reports over several years, in violation of several Office of the Court Administrator circulars, and his violation of the rule on daily or prompt remittance, constituted Gross Neglect of Duty and made him personally liable for the unearned interest.

On the second issue, the Court held that due process was complied with. In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard or explain one's side. Barataman was given more than sufficient chances and ignored them, so the case could be resolved on the evidence on record.

On the third issue, the Court held that restitution does not exculpate. It cited Canon Five, Section Two of the Code, which provides that settlement, restitution, compromise, withdrawal of the complaint or desistance of the complainant shall not interrupt or terminate disciplinary proceedings absent exceptional circumstances, and reiterated that even full payment of collection shortages will not exempt the accountable officer from liability.

Doctrine

• A clerk of court is the custodian of court funds and is regarded as treasurer, accountant, guard and physical plant manager; any shortage, misappropriation or failure to account for judiciary funds is dishonesty, gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct.
• Failure to remit judiciary collections on time and failure to submit monthly and quarterly financial reports constitute Gross Neglect of Duty and Gross Misconduct, punishable by dismissal even if committed for the first time.
• Restitution, whether partial, belated or irregular, does not extinguish administrative liability; even full payment of the shortage does not exempt the accountable officer.
• Under Canon Five, Section Six of the 2025 Code, an unjustified failure to file a verified comment waives participation, and the case may be resolved on the complaint and the evidence on record, consistent with the due process requirement of a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Disposition

The Court found Barataman guilty of Gross Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty and Gross Neglect of Duty and imposed the penalty of dismissal, with the accessory penalties and monetary liabilities recommended by the Judicial Integrity Office.

Remember This

Memorize the line that even full restitution of collection shortages will not exempt the accountable clerk of court from liability. Examiners use this case to test the accountability of clerks of court over judiciary funds, the waiver rule for failure to comment, and the rule that dismissal follows even a first offense of dishonesty or grave misconduct.