ABDULMAID K. MUIN, PETITIONER, VS. SAMUEL A. AVESTRUZ, JR., BRION, AND INTERPRETER AND FORMER OFFICER-IN- PERALTA, JJ. CHARGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 5, BONGAO, TAWI-TAWI,…

Muin versus Avestruz

The Case

This is an administrative case in the Supreme Court of the Philippines, arising from a complaint filed by Judge Abdulmaid Muin against Samuel Avestruz, Junior, who served as Court Interpreter and, for a time, as Officer-in-Charge Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Bongao, Tawi-Tawi. The judge asked the Court to look into the disappearance of court funds and the failure of the respondent to turn over the money and records under his custody. The case matters because it shows how the Court treats an accountable officer who abandons his post, leaves shortages behind, and cannot be found — and it fixes the rule that flight, unexplained shortages, and unauthorized withdrawals together amount to dishonesty, grave misconduct, and malversation, punishable by dismissal even for a first offense.

Procedural History

The matter began in the Office of the Court Administrator, which referred the case to the respondent for comment through an indorsement, but the indorsement could not be served because his whereabouts were unknown. Meanwhile, in a separate administrative matter, the Court's Second Division ordered the respondent dropped from the rolls for having been absent without official leave, without prejudice to the outcome of this administrative case. The Court later issued a resolution requiring the respondent to file a comment, directing the National Bureau of Investigation to serve the resolution, and directing the Office of the Court Administrator to form a team to conduct a special fiscal audit of the books and accounts of the branch. The audit team reported shortages in the Judiciary Development Fund and in the Fiduciary Fund. The Court then issued a further resolution directing restitution, the opening of a new interest-bearing account, the determination of the liability of the judges concerned, the filing of criminal charges, and a hold-departure order. The Office of the Court Administrator eventually recommended that the respondent be found guilty of a grave offense and dismissed from the service. The case was resolved by the Court en banc as an administrative matter, with the Court adopting the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator.

Facts

Samuel Avestruz, Junior, a Court Interpreter, was designated by Executive Judge Carlito Eisma as Officer-in-Charge Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Bongao, Tawi-Tawi, effective August 3, 1994. He replaced Carmelita Mongcupa, who had been relieved because she failed to submit required reports and to present the bankbook of the court's collections. That designation gave him authority to issue official receipts for all monies intended for the court, to deposit the same in the official depository bank, to remit the amounts to the proper government agencies, to submit the required reports to the Supreme Court, and to effect withdrawals of monies from the bank when authorized by a court order and countersigned by the presiding judge.

In January 2002, Judge Abdulmaid Muin, who had taken over the branch after Judge Eisma retired, directed the respondent to turn over the bankbook, money, and other properties of the court to the new Officer-in-Charge Clerk of Court, Abu Talipan. On January 7, 2002, before the turn over could be made, the respondent and his family left Tawi-Tawi without informing any court personnel, and he never reported for work again. Judge Muin recommended that he be considered absent without official leave and requested an audit and investigation. The National Bureau of Investigation, with the aid of a bank document examiner, found that the respondent had made withdrawals on four occasions from October 2001 to January 2002 without the necessary court orders and without the signature of the presiding judge, and recommended that he and the bank employee be indicted for malversation of public funds.

The Office of the Court Administrator later reported that it could not arrive at a final figure of the respondent's accountability because records were missing, but the audit team found a shortage of 8,473 pesos in the Judiciary Development Fund and a shortage of 1,738,579 pesos in the Fiduciary Fund. The respondent was given several opportunities to comment and clear his name, and the Court even sought the aid of the National Bureau of Investigation to locate him, but he never submitted any comment and his whereabouts remained unknown.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent, as Officer-in-Charge Clerk of Court and custodian of court funds, is liable for the shortages in the Judiciary Development Fund and the Fiduciary Fund.
• Whether or not the respondent's unauthorized withdrawals of court funds, without court orders and without the signature of the presiding judge, constitute dishonesty, grave misconduct, and malversation.
• Whether or not the respondent's flight and his failure to submit a comment may be taken as an indication of guilt and an implied admission of liability.
• Whether or not the respondent's designation in an acting capacity, as Officer-in-Charge, absolves him of the duties and liabilities of a Clerk of Court.
• Whether or not the fact that the respondent had already been dropped from the rolls deprives the Court of authority to resolve the administrative case against him.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the rule that an accountable officer may be held liable for malversation even without direct proof of misappropriation, as the Court states:

An accountable officer may be convicted of malversation even in the absence of direct proof of misappropriation for as long as there is evidence of shortage in his accounts which he is unable to explain.

This rule bears on the case because the respondent left unexplained shortages in both funds and never accounted for them.

The decision also applies the rule on the liability of a clerk of court as custodian of court funds, revenues, and properties:

The failure of a clerk of court, who is designated as custodian of the court's funds, revenues and properties shall be liable for any loss or shortage thereof, and his failure to account for the shortage in the funds he was handling and to turn over the money deposited with him constitutes dishonesty, grave misconduct and malversation, which are grave offenses punished by dismissal even for the first offense.

This rule bears on the case because the respondent, as custodian, failed to account for the shortages and to turn over the funds, which the Court characterized as dishonesty, grave misconduct, and malversation.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that custodians of court funds perform very delicate functions and are liable for any loss, shortage, or impairment thereof. The respondent was given the authority to issue receipts, deposit collections, remit amounts, submit reports, and effect withdrawals only when authorized by court order and countersigned by the presiding judge. He failed to perform these duties, left Tawi-Tawi without turning over the funds and books of account, and left shortages of 8,473 pesos in the Judiciary Development Fund and 1,738,579 pesos in the Fiduciary Fund. The Court applied the rule that an accountable officer may be convicted of malversation even without direct proof of misappropriation, so long as there is evidence of a shortage he cannot explain.

On the second issue, the Court found that the National Bureau of Investigation had established that the respondent made unauthorized withdrawals of court funds without the necessary court orders and without the signature of the presiding judge, with the aid of a bank employee. These findings, together with his flight, pointed to his culpability, and the Court held that his failure to account for the shortage and to turn over the money constituted dishonesty, grave misconduct, and malversation, which are grave offenses punished by dismissal even for a first offense.

On the third issue, the Court noted that the respondent had been given several opportunities to clear his name and that the Court had even sought the aid of the National Bureau of Investigation to locate him. He never submitted any comment and left Tawi-Tawi, with his whereabouts unknown. The Court held that such behavior is contrary to that of an innocent man, whose first impulse is to express his innocence at the first opportune time, and that flight is an indication of guilt and an implied admission of liability for the shortages.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the fact that the respondent discharged his functions only in an acting capacity, or as an officer-in-charge, cannot absolve him from liability, because the expectation for him to perform all the duties and responsibilities of a Clerk of Court is not diminished.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the fact that the respondent had been dropped from the rolls did not deprive the Court of its authority to resolve the administrative case, since the complaint was filed long before the dropping.

Doctrine

An accountable officer may be held liable for malversation even without direct proof of misappropriation, so long as there is evidence of a shortage in his accounts that he is unable to explain. A clerk of court designated as custodian of court funds, revenues, and properties is liable for any loss or shortage thereof, and his failure to account for the shortage and to turn over the money deposited with him constitutes dishonesty, grave misconduct, and malversation, which are grave offenses punishable by dismissal even for a first offense. Flight is an indication of guilt and an implied admission of liability for shortages. An officer-in-charge is not absolved from the duties and liabilities of a Clerk of Court merely because he serves in an acting capacity. The dropping of an employee from the rolls does not deprive the Court of authority to resolve a pending administrative case filed before the dropping.

Disposition

The Court found Samuel Avestruz, Junior, guilty of dishonesty, grave misconduct, and malversation, dismissed him from the service effective immediately with forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch, instrumentality, or agency of the government including government-owned or controlled corporations, and ordered him to restitute the shortages of 8,473 pesos in the Judiciary Development Fund and 1,738,579 pesos in the Fiduciary Fund.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that flight is an indication of guilt and an implied admission of liability for shortages, and that an accountable officer may be held liable for malversation even without direct proof of misappropriation so long as there is an unexplained shortage. Examiners like to use this case to test the liability of a clerk of court as custodian of court funds, the effect of an acting or officer-in-charge designation, and the rule that dropping from the rolls does not bar the resolution of a pending administrative case.