HON. ROSALIE D. PLATIL, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, MAINIT, SURIGAO DEL NORTE, COMPLAINANT, VS. MEDEL M. MONDANO, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, MAINIT, S…

Platil versus Mondano

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Presiding Judge Rosalie D. Platil of the Municipal Trial Court of Mainit, Surigao del Norte, against Medel M. Mondano, Clerk of Court II of the same court. The complaint charges grave misconduct, dishonesty, gross neglect of duties, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, flagrant disregard of the circulars of the Office of the Court Administrator, misappropriation, and habitual absenteeism. The case matters because it gathers in one decision the whole cluster of rules that govern the fiscal and administrative life of a clerk of court: the duty to deposit fiduciary collections within twenty-four hours, the duty to submit monthly financial reports, the definition of habitual absenteeism, and the rule that ignoring the directives of the Supreme Court is itself insubordination to the Court.

Procedural History

The case began as a letter-complaint of the Presiding Judge, received by the Office of the Court Administrator on March 5, 2015. The Office referred the complaint to the respondent for comment, and when he filed none, it sent him two letters directing him to comment. He still did not comply. Meanwhile, the Court had already dropped him from the rolls in a resolution dated August 3, 2015, for his failure to submit his daily time records and leave applications. The Office then evaluated the complaint and, in its agenda report dated June 8, 2020, recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter, that the respondent be found guilty, and that, since he had already been dropped from the rolls, the accessory penalties of forfeiture of benefits and perpetual disqualification from re-employment be imposed instead. The case reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter under its direct administrative supervision over court personnel, and the Court decided it through this per curiam decision.

Facts

Shortly after Presiding Judge Platil assumed her post in February 2013, it was discovered that the respondent had not turned over to the winning party in Civil Case Number 617 the amount of 12,500 pesos entrusted to him by the losing party. In his reply to the memorandum issued to him, he admitted the infraction but claimed he had already returned the full amount. Verification with the winning party showed that he had returned only 5,000 pesos. He also certified on the last pages of several docket inventory forms that he had personally examined the records of each case, when he had not.

The respondent was remiss in his fiscal duties. He failed to submit monthly financial reports despite the circulars of the Office of the Court Administrator, and he delayed or failed to remit his collections. A financial audit conducted in July 2013 found non-submission of financial reports, delayed and non-remittance of collections, non-issuance of official receipts for a sheriff's fee, cancellation of some official receipts, and failure to sign official receipts. The audit working papers showed that some cash bonds were belatedly deposited and others remained undeposited. In one criminal case, he took half of the cash bond and released it only after the anomaly was discovered; in another, the cash bonds remained undeposited even after the accused had been ordered released.

He was also a habitual absentee. He incurred unauthorized absences in 2013 and 2014, including eighteen days in November 2014 and fifteen days in December 2014, and he went absent without official leave from late November to mid-December 2014. He stopped submitting his daily time records from September 2014, and there were occasions when the stenographers prepared the financial reports. Despite being given a chance to reform after he asked for forgiveness, he again failed to submit the required reports.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and gross neglect of duty for his delayed remittance and non-remittance of court collections and his non-submission of financial reports.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross dishonesty and grave misconduct for misappropriating cash collections from litigants.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of habitual absenteeism and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross insubordination for repeatedly failing to comply with the directives of the Office of the Court Administrator to submit his comment.

Applicable Provisions

Administrative Circular Number 3-2000 of the Supreme Court provides:

Duty of the Clerks of Court, Officer-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 therefor, 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 and Deposits for said Fund.

This fixes the respondent's duty as collector and accountable officer, which he violated by his delayed and missing remittances and reports.

Circular Number 50-95 of the Office of the Court Administrator provides:

All collections from bailbonds, rental deposits, and other fiduciary collections shall be deposited within twenty-four (24) hours by the Clerk of Court concerned upon receipt thereof, with the Land Bank of the Philippines.

This is the twenty-four hour deposit rule that the respondent repeatedly breached with the cash bonds he collected.

Administrative Circular Number 14-2002 provides:

An employee in the Civil Service shall be considered habitually absent if he or she incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable 2.5 days monthly leave credit under the law for at least three (3) months in a semester or at least three (3) consecutive months during the year.

This supplies the test of habitual absenteeism that the respondent's absences squarely meet.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent's delayed remittance and non-remittance of court collections, and his non-submission of financial reports, constitute gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and gross neglect of duty. Clerks of court are custodians of court funds and are not supposed to keep such funds in their custody. The Court applied its earlier ruling that the failure of a clerk of court to remit court funds collected, and to submit financial reports in violation of the Court's administrative circulars, constitutes serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and gross neglect of duty punishable by dismissal from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, excluding accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in the government.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent misappropriated cash collections from litigants. He admitted his failure to turn over the money in Civil Case Number 617 and then misled the Presiding Judge into believing that the full amount had been returned. He returned the cash collections only after the audit team discovered the discrepancies. The Court held that he is guilty of gross dishonesty and grave misconduct for misappropriating the collections of the court and funds received by him in his official capacity.

On the third issue, the Court held that the respondent is guilty of habitual absenteeism and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Applying the definition in Administrative Circular Number 14-2002, the Court found that his unauthorized absences exceeded the allowable monthly leave credit within the given time frame. The Court stressed that habitual absenteeism is prejudicial to the best interest of the public service because it makes a mockery of the high standards the Judiciary maintains.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the respondent is guilty of gross insubordination. His refusal to submit his comment despite the repeated directives of the Office of the Court Administrator is tantamount to insubordination to the Court itself. The Court quoted its earlier ruling:

A resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly and completely.

Every officer or employee in the judiciary is duty-bound to obey the orders and processes of the Supreme Court without the least delay.

Doctrine

A clerk of court is the custodian of court funds and revenues and is liable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of said funds and property. Fiduciary collections, such as cash bonds, must be deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines within twenty-four hours from receipt, and monthly financial reports must be submitted under the circulars of the Office of the Court Administrator. Failure to remit court funds collected, and failure to submit financial reports in violation of the Court's administrative circulars, constitutes serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and gross neglect of duty punishable by dismissal from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, excluding accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in the government. An employee is habitually absent if he incurs unauthorized absences exceeding the allowable two and a half days monthly leave credit for at least three months in a semester or at least three consecutive months during the year. Finally, the refusal to comply with the orders and directives of the Supreme Court is insubordination to the Court itself and warrants disciplinary action.

Disposition

The Court held the respondent guilty of grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and gross insubordination, and, since he had already been dropped from the rolls, imposed on him the accessory penalties of forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government instrumentality, including government-owned and controlled corporations, and ordered the Civil Service Commission to cancel his civil service eligibility, if any.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a clerk of court who keeps fiduciary collections beyond twenty-four hours and skips the monthly financial reports commits serious dishonesty, grave misconduct, and gross neglect of duty, and that ignoring the Court's directives is insubordination to the Court itself. Examiners like to use this case on the fiscal duties of clerks of court, on the definition of habitual absenteeism, and on the rule that a Supreme Court resolution is not a mere request.