RE: FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED ON THE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS OF CLERK OF COURT PACITA T. SENDIN, MTC, SOLANO, NUEVA VIZCAYA.

Re: Financial Audit of the Books of Accounts of Clerk of Court Pacita T. Sendin

The Case

This is an administrative matter arising from a financial audit conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator on the books of accounts of Pacita T. Sendin, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya. It is not a suit between private parties but a proceeding initiated by the Court itself, through its audit arm, to determine the administrative liability of a retiring clerk of court who failed to remit judiciary collections on time. The case matters because it fixes the standard of accountability for clerks of court as custodians of judicial funds, and it illustrates how the Court calibrates the penalty when the accountable officer has already retired and has made restitution.

Procedural History

The matter began as a routine financial audit. Mrs. Sendin compulsorily retired from the service on July 19, 2000, and submitted her cashbooks and related documents for clearance purposes. The audit covered her accountability for judiciary funds from March 1985 to July 15, 2000. On March 28, 2001, the Office of the Clerk of Court submitted a memorandum reporting that the audit had revealed delays in the remittance of fund collections. The matter was elevated to the Supreme Court as an administrative proceeding, and the Court resolved it in its decision of January 16, 2002.

Facts

Pacita T. Sendin served as Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, and was in charge of judiciary funds for the period covering March 1985 to July 15, 2000. On July 19, 2000, she compulsorily retired from the service and submitted her cashbooks and other related documents for clearance purposes.

The audit, as reported in the memorandum of the Office of the Clerk of Court dated March 28, 2001, showed delays in the remittance of fund collections. For the Judiciary Development Fund, total collections from March 1985 to July 15, 2000 amounted to 305,203.20 pesos, against remittances of 253,614.20 pesos, leaving unremitted collections of 51,589 pesos as of July 15, 2000. For the General Fund, total collections from September 1995 to July 15, 2000 amounted to 99,751.85 pesos, against remittances of 17,866.65 pesos representing interest earned on deposits of the Fiduciary Fund, leaving unremitted collections of 81,885.20 pesos as of July 15, 2000. For the Fiduciary Fund, the audit showed a shortage of 172,198.85 pesos as of July 15, 2000.

In all, the audit showed that Mrs. Sendin incurred a total shortage of 303,809.05 pesos. She restituted the amounts on separate dates in January of 2001, and her accountability was reduced to zero. Nevertheless, the non-remittance on time deprived the Court of the interest that may be earned had the amounts been deposited in a bank, as prudently required.

Issues

• Whether or not Mrs. Sendin is administratively liable for neglect of duty for the delay in remitting judiciary fund collections.
• Whether or not the fact of her retirement, her long years of service, and her belated restitution affect the penalty to be imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Administrative Circular 5-93 provides:

3. Duty of the Clerks of Court, Officers-in-Charge or accountable officers. The Clerks of Court, Officers-in-Charge of the Office of the Clerk of Court, or their accountable duly authorized representatives designated by them in writing, who must be accountable officers, shall receive the Judiciary Development Fund collections, issue the proper receipt therefore, maintain a separate cash book properly marked CASH BOOK FOR JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND, deposit such collections in the manner herein prescribed, and render the proper monthly report of collections for said fund.

This circular establishes the duty to deposit and remit collections in the manner prescribed, and it is the standard against which Mrs. Sendin's delays are measured.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Mrs. Sendin is administratively liable. As Clerk of Court, she had the duty to remit the collections within a prescribed period. Shortages in the amounts to be remitted and the years of delay in the actual remittance constitute neglect of duty for which she shall be administratively liable. It is the clerk of court's duty to faithfully perform her duties and responsibilities as such, to the end that there was full compliance with circulars on deposits of collections. Clerks of court with regard to the collection of legal fees perform a delicate function as judicial officers entrusted with the correct and effective implementation of regulations thereon. The Court added that undue delay in the remittances of amounts collected by clerks of court at the very least constitutes misfeasance. As a public servant, Mrs. Sendin must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity, and her failure to properly remit the fund collections transgressed the trust reposed in her as an officer of the court.

On the second issue, the Court tempered the penalty. Since Mrs. Sendin had retired from the service with forty-six years of service to the court, and she restituted the amounts although belatedly, the Court found it proper to impose a fine rather than a heavier penalty.

Doctrine

A clerk of court is an accountable officer entrusted with judiciary funds and must remit collections within the prescribed period. Shortages in the amounts to be remitted, and years of delay in actual remittance, constitute neglect of duty for which the clerk is administratively liable. Undue delay in remitting collections at the very least constitutes misfeasance. The duty is grounded in Administrative Circular 5-93, which requires the clerk of court to receive the Judiciary Development Fund collections, issue the proper receipt, maintain a separate cash book, deposit the collections in the manner prescribed, and render the proper monthly report. Belated restitution does not erase the liability, because the delay itself deprived the Court of the interest the funds could have earned; but retirement, long service, and restitution may justify the imposition of a fine instead of a heavier penalty.

Disposition

The Court imposed on Pacita T. Sendin a fine of five thousand pesos, to be deducted from her retirement benefits.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that undue delay in the remittance of collections by a clerk of court at the very least constitutes misfeasance, and belated restitution does not wipe out the neglect of duty. Examiners use this case to test the administrative liability of accountable officers over judiciary funds and the mitigating effect of retirement, long service, and restitution on the penalty.