OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, VS. JUDGE DEOGRACIAS K. DEL ROSARIO, (FORMER CLERK OF COURT, RTC, SAN JOSE, ANTIQUE), RESPONDENT.

In a letter dated June 10, 1992 addressed to the Hon. Ernani Cruz
Pano, Court Administrator, Mr. Ramon O. de Vera, State Auditor V, referred a
letter dated January 10, 1992 of Mr. Jose C. Cabarles, Provincial Auditor,
Commission on Audit, San Jose, Antique, reporting on the results of the
examination made on October 1, 1991 concerning the cash and accounts of Atty.
Deogracias K. del Rosario, then Clerk of
Court, Regional Trial Court, San Jose, Antique.

In the subject examination, it was disclosed that one (1) piece
of official receipt, General Form 13-A with SN 9797272 is missing. Respondent is the accountable officer in
custody thereof. A letter of demand
dated October 4, 1991 was issued
by the audit team requiring respondent to produce the missing form and to
submit an explanation why the said form was not presented for audit.

Mr. Ramon de Vera reported further that per verification on the
accounts of respondent based on the records, the following were noted:

1.      
The latest report of collections and deposits recorded
in the subsidiary ledger for the General Fund and Fiduciary accounts are for
the months of May 1989 and December 1988, respectively;

2.      
There was no record of collections and deposits on the
JDF for the years 1987 to 1990, January to March 1991 and June 1991. The latest report of collections and
deposits recorded is as of July 1991 only;

3.      
Only the Sheriff Fund’s Report of Collections and Deposits
have been regularly submitted to the Accounting Division;

4.      
The subject missing accountable form (O.R. No. 9797272) was
not included in the series of the accountable forms (General Form 13 A) issued
by the Property Division, Supreme Court to the Office of said accountable
officer, to wit: Gen. Form 13 A
SN-27001 to 288000 and 845001 to 84600,
issued on Jan. 8, 1987 and May 19, 1988, respectively.

(pp. 2-3, Vol. II, Rollo.)

Meanwhile, respondent was appointed judge of the Municipal
Circuit Trial Court of Patnongon-Valderama, Antique.

Mrs. Antonina A. Soria, Director III, Field Audit Division (this
Court) in a Memorandum dated June 17, 1992 addressed to Court Administrator
Ernani Cruz Pano recommended that respondent should first settle his
accountability before he is given clearance to assume his new position. The failure of respondent to respond to this
memorandum, was reported by Mrs. Soria in another memorandum dated June 8, 1993
and she repeated her request for respondent to submit all the documents
required with the appropriate explanation on the problem of subject
accountability. Again, respondent
ignored this request.

Upon receipt of Mrs. Soria’s memorandum, Deputy Court
Administrator Juanito A. Bernad directed respondent in a letter dated July 2,
1992, to explain and reconcile the alleged inconsistencies in his records. Another letter, this time from Deputy Court
Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez, dated Sept. 15, 1993 reiterated the directive
with a warning of an administrative charge should respondent again fail to
respond.

In his memorandum dated March 18, 1991, Deputy Court
Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis, taking into consideration the repeated
refusals of Atty. del Rosario to comply with the foregoing requests and
directives to explain and clear his accountabilities, recommended a fine of One
Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) with an order to submit all pertinent documents
relative to his accountabilities.

The Court in an En Banc resolution dated April 14, 1994 directed the Court Administrator to file
the proper charges against Atty. del Rosario within ten (10) days from notice
thereof.

Pursuant thereto, the Office of the Court Administrator filed the
corresponding formal charge against Atty. del Rosario for grave misconduct
and/or negligence committed as follows:

1. While he was still the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial
Court of San Jose, Antique, one piece of Official Receipt, General Form 13-A
with SN 9797272, which was under his custody as accountable officer, was found
to be missing when an examination in his cash and accounts was made by the
Commission on Audit on October 1, 1994;

2. Despite the directives of both this office and the Commission
on Audit, he has failed up to the present to produce the said accountable form
and to report to this Court in order that a “Notice of Loss” or
“Circular” could be issued to prevent the fraudulent use of such accountable
form; and

3. As appearing in the subsidiary ledger of the Accounting
Division of this Court he is not submitting regularly the required monthly
report of collections and deposits for Fiduciary Fund, General Fund for Clerk
of Court, Sheriff Trust Fund, and the Judiciary Development Fund. This matter was also verified by the COA per
its letter dated June 10, 1992.

In his comment dated July 22, 1994, respondent asserts his clear
conscience, stating inter alia that he thought that when he was required to
attend the Seminar for Judges
and finished the same, that already served as his clearance to assume the
duties of a judge and probably cleared him also his accountabilities with the
COA.

Respondent, further states that he officially assumed office (as Clerk
of Court) on June 9, 1984 without a formal turn-over from his predecessor Tomas
Huelar; that he discharged his duties until his appointment on October 9, 1991
as Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge; that upon his assumption as Clerk of
Court there were many “loose ends” such as not having received the
Official Cash Book for the JDF although all pertinent transactions were entered
in the Blue Record Book; that due to lack of proper official receipts at times,
those requisitioned from the Provincial Government were the ones used; that
sometime in 1988, the office was ransacked; that on June 24, 1991, O.R. No.
9797272 was found missing; that investigation showed that two other receipts,
O.R. No. 9797271 and 9797273, were issued by Mrs. Merlinda Villavert, their
Court Aide; that since his assumption as Clerk of Court there were already
seven cash and accounts examinations/audits conducted by the COA of Antique and
there were no shortages incurred by him except that of the missing receipt
which is in violation of COA Circular NO. 84233 dated August 21, 1984; that if
ever there was no regular reporting of the collections and deposits for
Fiduciary Fund, General Fund for Clerk of Court, Sheriff Trust Fund, and the
Judiciary Development Fund it was due to “personnel inefficiency” he
being too soft on his personnel; that he believed that his having written to
the Provincial Auditor explaining the missing O.R. No. 9797272 (General Form
No. 13-A) was enough compliance with Ms. Eleanor Q. Mena’s (State Auditor II)
requirement; that he is a family man and prays that he be now paid his salary
as MCTC judge.

The Office of the Court Administrator in a memorandum dated
October 24, 1994 made the following findings and recommendation:

This office is amazed at the cavalier manner respondent treated
all the communications requiring him to explain his questioned accountabilities
as former Clerk of Court of San Jose, Antique.

His reasons of burglary of his office sometime in 1988,
inefficiencies of his personnel, “no formal turn-over of duties and
accountabilities” from the former Clerk of Court to him, ransacking of his
office in 1988 but without proofs thereof, are self-serving defenses.

Respondent judge has been in government service of ten years so
he should be familiar with government rules and will be retiring on March 2,
2014.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, there is every reason for this Office to
reiterate its recommendation in its memorandum dated March 18, 1994 that: “(1) Deogracias K. del Rosario, then
Clerk of Court, RTC, San Jose, Antique, now Presiding Judge, MCTC,
Patnongon-Valderama, Antique, be held liable for gross misconduct and/or
negligence and a) a FINE of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) PESOS be imposed upon
him; b) he be DIRECTED to submit to this Court all pertinent documents relating
to his accountabilities as then Clerk of Court, RTC, San Jose, Antique within
fifteen days from notice with STERN WARNING that failure to comply therewith
will be DEALT WITH MORE SEVERELY.

(pp. 4-5, Vol. I, Rollo.)

After a careful examination of the records of this case we find
no reason to depart from the conclusion reached by the Office of the Court Administrator that respondent is indeed liable
for gross misconduct and/or negligence. His wanton refusal to comply with the directives of the Office of the
Court Administrator and of the Commission on Audit shows his defiance to
superiors amounting to gross misconduct and/or negligence which must be meted
with sanction if only to remind him that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected
with an office charged with the dispensation of justice should be circumscribed
with the heavy burden of responsibility.

COA Circular No. 84-233 dated August 21, 1984 reiterating GAO
Memorandum Circular No. 318 dated February 11, 1957 states:

Effective upon receipt of this circular, any loss of accountable
forms in the custody of collecting and property officers shall immediately be
reported by the accountable officers concerned to their respective chiefs of
offices or heads of government entities who, in turn, will at once issue a
circular or notice of loss for the information and guidance of all collecting
and disbursing officers, provincial, city and municipal treasurers, bureau,
provincial and city auditors and other concerned in preventing against the
possible fraudulent use of such accountable forms. The notice to be issued shall specify the kind, quantity and
inclusive serial numbers of the lost accountable forms and the place or places
where, and approximate date or dates when, the same were lost.

(p. 24, Vol. II, Rollo.)

As an accountable officer, respondent cannot profess ignorance of
the above-cited circular for it is required that he must update his knowledge
with whatever laws or any memorandum circular that may be issued by the
Commission on Audit as he has to deal from time to time with its auditors,
especially in the audit of his cash and accounts.

The purpose of the aforesaid circular is to prevent the
fraudulent use of the missing form. Records, however, show that the subject missing form was not utilized
despite the lapse of more than three (3) years now from the time its loss was
discovered wayback in October 1991. There being no damage sustained by the government or by anyone for that
matter, the recommended fine of P10,000.00 appears to be a bit harsh. The Court believes that a fine of P5,000.00
is more reasonable.

PREMISES CONSIDERED, respondent Deogracias K. del Rosario
is hereby found guilty of misconduct and negligence for which he is ordered to
pay a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00). He is further ordered to submit to this Court all pertinent documents
relating to his accountabilities as then Clerk of Court, RTC, San Jose,
Antique, within fifteen (15) days from notice, with stern warning that failure
to do so will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Bidin, Romero, and
Vitug, JJ., concur.

Feliciano, J., (Chairman), on
leave.