ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ARTURO BATONGBACAL, FORMER CLERK OF COURT AND REMEDIOS I. ROXAS, COURT STENOGRAPHER I, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, PULILAN, BULACAN, RESPONDENTS.

Administrator versus Batongbacal

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by the Office of the Court Administrator against Arturo Batongbacal, former Clerk of Court, and Remedios Roxas, Court Stenographer and later Officer-in-Charge, of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pulilan, Bulacan. The Court examines the books of accounts of a municipal trial court after an on-the-spot audit and confronts massive shortages in the General Fund, the Judiciary Development Fund, the Fiduciary Fund, and the Philippine Mediation Center Trust Fund. It matters because the Court here restates, in the clearest terms, the fiscal duties of every clerk of court and accountable officer, and because it treats the failure to remit funds upon demand as malversation, a ground for dismissal from the service.

Procedural History

The case began as an audit report of the Court Management Office of the Office of the Court Administrator, which conducted an on-the-spot audit of the municipal trial court's books in August 2001. The Court, sitting en banc, issued a resolution in January 2002 directing the former clerk of court Tomas Ocampo and the incumbent clerk of court Batongbacal to remit or restitute their respective shortages. Ocampo complied; Batongbacal did not. In July 2004 the Court found Batongbacal guilty of gross dishonesty, gross misconduct, and malversation of public funds, dismissed him from the service, applied his withheld salaries to his accountabilities, and disqualified him from re-employment in any branch of the government or any government-owned or controlled corporation. Batongbacal moved for reconsideration, and the Court referred the motion, and later his letter, to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation. A comprehensive audit followed, which also covered Roxas, the officer-in-charge who took over after Batongbacal was relieved. In June 2006 the Court directed Batongbacal to restitute his shortages and to transmit supporting documents for his cash bond withdrawals, directed Roxas to explain, restitute her shortages, and account for her official receipts, and docketed the report as a regular administrative complaint with Roxas included as respondent. Batongbacal did not comply. Roxas filed letters, a sworn statement, and various motions, all referred to the Office of the Court Administrator. In February 2009 that office submitted its memorandum and recommendations, and the Court resolved the matter as an original administrative action.

Facts

In August 2001 an audit team from the Court Management Office examined the books of accounts of the municipal trial court of Pulilan, Bulacan. The team found that the former clerk of court Tomas Ocampo and the then incumbent clerk of court Arturo Batongbacal had incurred shortages in their corresponding accounts. The Court directed both to remit or restitute. Ocampo complied; Batongbacal did not, and in July 2004 he was dismissed from the service for gross dishonesty, gross misconduct, and malversation of public funds, with his withheld salaries applied to his accountabilities and with disqualification from re-employment in the government.

Batongbacal sought reconsideration and submitted new documents, prompting the Court to order a comprehensive audit. That audit also covered Remedios Roxas, the officer-in-charge who took over when Batongbacal was relieved. The audit team found both respondents remiss in their duties, with massive shortages in the court's funds under their custody, and noted that Roxas's salary had been withheld because she failed to submit her Monthly Reports of Collections and Deposits on time. In June 2006 the Court directed Batongbacal to restitute his shortages in the General Fund, the Judiciary Development Fund, and the Fiduciary Fund, and to support his cash bond withdrawals; it directed Roxas to explain, to restitute her shortages in the General Fund, the Philippine Mediation Center Trust Fund, and the Fiduciary Fund, and to account for cancelled and double-used official receipts and unaccounted receipt booklets. Batongbacal did not comply. Roxas denied liability, claiming she was a victim of circumstances and that the presiding judge and Batongbacal were the ones who appropriated the missing funds, and she asked that her withheld salaries be released so she could answer for the shortages.

The Office of the Court Administrator later found that Roxas failed to restitute or account for a total shortage of 768,500 pesos, and failed to transmit the documents needed to support the validity of the cash bond withdrawals made during her term. It recommended that her motion for reconsideration be denied, that she be dismissed from the service for malversation of funds with forfeiture of her retirement benefits, withheld salaries, and leave credits, and with disqualification from re-employment, that a criminal case be filed against her, and that she restitute the balance. The Court adopted the recommendations with modifications.

Issues

• Whether or not Roxas is administratively liable for failing to deposit her collections on time under the circulars governing court funds.
• Whether or not Roxas is liable for withdrawing cash bonds without the necessary court orders and acknowledgment receipts.
• Whether or not Roxas's failure to turn over funds in her custody upon demand, and to justify her withdrawals, constitutes malversation of public funds.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal from the service, with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from re-employment, is proper.

Applicable Provisions

The third paragraph of Supreme Court Circular Number 13-92 provides:

All fiduciary collections shall be deposited immediately by the Clerk of Court concerned, upon receipt thereof, with an authorized government depository bank.

This fixes the duty of immediate deposit, which Roxas violated when she failed to deposit her collections on time.

Section B(4) of Supreme Court Circular Number 50-95 provides:

The deposit be made within 24 hours upon receipt thereof with the Land Bank of the Philippines.

This makes the deposit duty more emphatic and particular, and the audit showed Roxas failed to comply.

Section B(2) of Supreme Court Circular Number 50-95 provides:

No withdrawals from the court's fiduciary funds shall be allowed unless there is a lawful order from the Court that has jurisdiction over the subject matter involved.

This is the provision Roxas violated when she withdrew cash bonds without the necessary court orders.

Supreme Court Circular Number 32-93 provides:

All clerks of court or accountable officers are required to submit to the Supreme Court not later than the 10th day of each succeeding month a monthly report of collection for all funds.

This explains why Roxas's salary was withheld: she failed to submit her monthly reports of collections and deposits on time.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Roxas failed to deposit her collections on time. The audit team found that as early as October 2002 she incurred delay in depositing most of her collections without any excuse, and that from August 2004 until November of the same year she failed to deposit all of her Fiduciary Fund collections without justifiable cause. For this, she violated Supreme Court Circular Number 13-92 and Section B(4) of Supreme Court Circular Number 50-95.

On the second issue, the Court held that Roxas withdrew cash bonds, which form part of the court's fiduciary funds, without the necessary court orders and acknowledgment receipts, a gross violation of Supreme Court Circular Number 50-95.

On the third issue, the Court held that Roxas's failure to turn over funds in her custody upon the Court's demand, and to justify her withdrawals of cash bonds, constitutes malversation. The Court stated the rule:

Failure of a public officer to remit funds upon demand by an authorized officer constitutes prima facie evidence that the public officer has put such missing funds or property to personal use.

The Court added that all that is necessary to prove malversation are that the defendant received in his possession public funds or property, that he could not account for them and did not have them in his possession when audited, and that he could not give a satisfactory or reasonable excuse for the disappearance of such funds.

On the fourth issue, the Court adopted the recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator with modifications, imposing dismissal and its accessory penalties.

Doctrine

A clerk of court is the custodian of court funds and revenues, and the circulars of the Supreme Court define his or her duties. Fiduciary collections must be deposited immediately upon receipt with an authorized government depository bank, and under Section B(4) of Supreme Court Circular Number 50-95 the deposit must be made within 24 hours upon receipt with the Land Bank of the Philippines. No withdrawal from fiduciary funds is allowed unless there is a lawful order from the court having jurisdiction over the subject matter. Accountable officers must submit a monthly report of collection for all funds not later than the tenth day of each succeeding month. Failure to remit funds upon demand by an authorized officer is prima facie evidence that the public officer has put the missing funds to personal use, and this, with the inability to account for the funds when audited and the absence of a satisfactory excuse, constitutes malversation.

Disposition

The Court denied Roxas's motion for reconsideration, dismissed her from the service for malversation of funds with forfeiture of her retirement benefits, withheld salaries, and leave credits, disqualified her from re-employment in any branch of the government or any government-owned or controlled corporation, directed the filing of the corresponding criminal case, and ordered her to restitute the balance of her shortages.

Remember This

Memorize this line: failure of a public officer to remit funds upon demand by an authorized officer is prima facie evidence that the officer has put the missing funds to personal use. Examiners use this case to test the fiscal duties of clerks of court under the Supreme Court circulars and the elements of malversation in administrative proceedings.