REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS OF BANI, ALAMINOS, AND LINGAYEN, IN PANGASINAN.

Report on the Financial Audit Conducted at the Municipal Trial Courts of Bani, Alaminos, and Lingayen, in Pangasinan

The Case

This is an administrative matter that began not with a complaint filed by a private party but with a routine financial audit. The Judicial Audit team of the Office of the Court Administrator examined the books of the Municipal Trial Courts of Bani, Alaminos, and Lingayen in Pangasinan and found shortages in the Judiciary Development Fund, the General Fund, and the Fiduciary Fund, together with unsubmitted monthly reports of collections and missing official receipts. The case is against Virgilio Tugas, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Bani, and Carmen Tantay, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Lingayen. It matters to every Bar candidate because it states, in the Court's own words, the standard of honesty demanded of judicial personnel and the consequence of using court funds for personal needs.

Procedural History

There was no trial court and no Court of Appeals in this matter. It is an original administrative proceeding before the Supreme Court, arising from the audit report of the Office of the Court Administrator submitted in January 2001. Acting on that report, the Court issued a resolution in March 2001 directing both clerks of court to explain why no administrative sanction should be imposed, to restitute their shortages, and to account for missing receipts, while suspending them from office and issuing hold departure orders. When Tantay did not comply, the Court issued further resolutions, including one directing a presiding judge to serve the earlier resolution anew, and another requiring her to show cause and imposing a fine or imprisonment in lieu thereof for continued non-compliance. In December 2002 the Court directed the Court Administrator to conduct a comprehensive investigation. The Office of the Court Administrator submitted its report in September 2003 recommending that the audit report be docketed as a regular complaint for gross misconduct and dishonesty, that both respondents be found guilty and dismissed, and that they be directed to restitute their shortages. The Court then resolved the matter in this decision.

Facts

The audit of the three Municipal Trial Courts in Pangasinan, reported in January 2001, showed that Tugas had shortages in the Judiciary Development Fund, the General Fund, and the Fiduciary Fund, and that he had failed to submit his monthly reports of collections, deposits, and withdrawals since 1995. Tantay's audit showed far larger shortages in the same funds, her own failure to submit monthly reports since 1995, and a long list of missing official receipts with specific serial numbers.

In a letter dated October 2001, Tugas denied misappropriating government funds. He explained that he had been relieved of his duties and replaced by a deputy sheriff as officer in charge in September 2000, and that the audit had failed to consider withdrawals covered by court orders and acknowledged receipts. He admitted, however, that he had failed to deposit the amounts in his possession, and that he had used part of his collection when his son was hospitalized in September 1999 and later died. He said he had been able to substitute the amount, and he asked for understanding, compassion, and the chance to retire early with dignity.

Tantay, for her part, did not comply with the Court's March 2001 resolution. A later resolution had to be served anew through her brother, who received it in January 2002. She was required to show cause why she should not be disciplinarily dealt with, and when she still did not comply, the Court imposed a fine or imprisonment in lieu thereof. The Court Administrator later reported that her continued defiance amounted to an evasion of the investigation process, indicative of her guilt.

Issues

• Whether or not Virgilio Tugas, Clerk of Court, is administratively liable for gross misconduct and dishonesty for using court funds for a personal purpose and for failing to remit and report his collections.
• Whether or not Carmen Tantay, Clerk of Court, is administratively liable for gross misconduct and dishonesty for her shortages, her failure to submit monthly reports, her failure to account for missing official receipts, and her defiance of the Court's directives.
• Whether or not the payment or restitution of the shortages, or the offer to retire, frees a clerk of court from the consequences of the wrongdoing.

Applicable Provisions

Section 52 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies the offenses and fixes their penalties:

Section 52. Classification of Offenses. – Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service. A. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties: 1. Dishonesty – 1st Offense – Dismissal 2. Gross Neglect of Duty – 1st Offense – Dismissal 3. Grave Misconduct – 1st Offense – Dismissal

This provision bears directly on the case because dishonesty and grave misconduct are grave offenses punishable by dismissal on the first offense, which is exactly the penalty the Court imposed on both respondents.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held Tugas administratively liable. He himself admitted that he used the court's funds to finance his son's hospitalization and replaced the money afterwards. The Court, adopting the computation of the Court Administrator, found that his claim of an excess of 3,465 pesos had no basis, and that his total shortage amounted to 89,390 pesos, consisting of 42,314 pesos in the Judiciary Development Fund, 6,751 pesos in the General Fund, and 40,325 pesos in the Fiduciary Fund. His acts violated the circulars of the Court: the non-issuance of official receipts, the delayed and non-remittance of collections, and the use of government money for personal use. The Court laid down the rule in these words:

The failure of a clerk of court to turn over money deposited with him and adequately explain and present evidence thereon constitutes gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and even malversation of public funds which this Court will never countenance, as they indubitably diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.

On the second issue, the Court likewise held Tantay liable. Her refusal to face the charges head-on, the Court said, was contrary to the principle in criminal law that the first impulse of an innocent man when accused of wrongdoing is to express his innocence at the first opportune time. The record showed that she failed to submit monthly reports since 1995, failed to account for 1,112,140 pesos pertaining to the Court, and failed to account for the missing official receipts. The Court stressed that no position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its occupant than the judicial office, and that clerks of court must be individuals of competence, honesty, and probity, charged as they are with safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings.

On the third issue, the Court held that even the fact that a respondent fully paid his shortages will not free him from the consequences of his wrongdoing. The offer of early retirement did not move the Court. Being left with no choice, it declared both respondents guilty of dishonesty and gross misconduct, which are grave offenses punished by dismissal.

Doctrine

First, the failure of a clerk of court to turn over money deposited with him, and to adequately explain and present evidence thereon, constitutes gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and even malversation of public funds. Second, the full payment or restitution of shortages does not erase administrative liability; it does not free the erring employee from the consequences of the wrongdoing. Third, the deliberate refusal to comply with the resolutions of the Court in an administrative matter amounts to an evasion of the investigation process and is indicative of guilt. Fourth, under Section 52 of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dishonesty and grave misconduct are grave offenses punishable by dismissal on the first offense. Fifth, those connected with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity, because their positions primarily involve service to the public.

Disposition

Both clerks of court were found guilty of gross misconduct and dishonesty and dismissed from the service effective immediately, with forfeiture of all withheld salaries, allowances, benefits, and retirement benefits, with prejudice to reemployment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, and were directed to restitute their respective shortages, with the Legal Office directed to file criminal charges against them.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a clerk of court's failure to turn over money deposited with him, and to adequately explain and present evidence thereon, constitutes gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and even malversation of public funds. Examiners use this case to test the standard of honesty required of judicial personnel and the rule that restitution of shortages does not wipe out administrative liability.