OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. MARLON ROQUE, CLERK OF COURT, BRANCH 3, MTCC, ANGELES CITY AND ANITA G. NUNAG, CLERK OF COURT, OCC, MTCC, ANGELES CITY, RESPO…

Office of the Court Administrator versus Roque

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by the Office of the Court Administrator against two clerks of court of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Angeles City, Marlon Roque and Anita Nunag. They were directed to explain why they should not be disciplined for failing to closely supervise the financial transactions of their court, for failing to monitor the collections of a cashier, and for failing to see to the timely remittance of those collections. The case matters because it fixes the standard of diligence owed by clerks of court as custodians of judicial funds, and it tells us that ignorance of accounting is no defense to a charge of neglect of duty.

Procedural History

The case began in an earlier administrative matter in which the Supreme Court dismissed a cashier, Aurelia Lugue, for dishonesty. In the same resolution, the Court directed Roque and Nunag to explain in writing why they should not be dealt with for failing to exercise close supervision over the court's financial transactions, to monitor the cashier's handling of collections, and to monitor the timely remittance of those collections. The Court ordered that the administrative matter against the two clerks be given a separate docket number and re-raffled. Roque submitted a compliance and Nunag submitted an explanation. The Office of the Court Administrator then evaluated the case and, in a memorandum, found both guilty of simple negligence and recommended a fine of five thousand pesos each. The matter was resolved by the Supreme Court itself, which exercises administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel.

Facts

Roque served as officer in charge of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Angeles City Municipal Trial Court in Cities from December 2002 to August 2003. When he assumed the post, he simply followed the procedures of his predecessor, who had retired. He claimed that he did his very best to supervise the office, that he never noted any discrepancy in the monthly reports of collections, and that since the auditors of the Commission on Audit found no shortages, he had no reason to suspect the cashier.

Nunag later became clerk of court. She admitted that she was not thoroughly familiar with accounting procedures and had no exposure to bookkeeping. She continued the practices of her predecessors, relying on the fact that audits conducted in April 2003 and January 2004 showed no adverse findings. She checked and physically counted the daily collections and counterchecked the monthly reports, bankbooks, and books of accounts.

An audit report later revealed that the cashier had employed a lapping technique, covering the shortage in one collection with the payment of another, and that remittances of almost all fiduciary fund collections were delayed. The total shortage reached six hundred five thousand twenty five pesos. The audit team observed that the two clerks could have discovered the scheme had they set in place a proper system of internal control, such as routinely examining the details of collections against validated deposit slips, crosschecking official receipts against the cash book, and reviewing bank statements. Instead, they relied on the fact that the amounts deposited matched the amounts collected, and on monthly reports that could easily be manipulated.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondents are guilty of simple neglect of duty for failing to closely supervise and monitor the financial transactions of their court.
• Whether or not the respondents' lack of knowledge of accounting procedures and their reliance on the findings of the Commission on Audit may excuse them from administrative liability.
• Whether or not the penalty of fine, instead of suspension, may be imposed upon each of the respondents.

Applicable Provisions

Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations provides:

Simple neglect of duty is punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense.

This fixes the range of the penalty for the offense the respondents were found to have committed.

Section 19, Rule XIV of the same Rules provides:

The penalty of fine instead of suspension may also be imposed in the alternative.

This is the basis for the Court's choice of a fine rather than suspension.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found both respondents guilty of simple neglect of duty. Their supervision and monitoring were merely perfunctory, relying mainly on the monthly reports and on the fact that the amounts deposited matched the amounts collected. The Court held that as accountable officers and custodians of the court's funds, they were duty-bound to use reasonable skill and diligence, and that the trust they reposed in the cashier could not be a valid defense. It was their duty to see to it that their subordinates performed their functions properly.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondents' lack or limited knowledge of accounting procedures did not exonerate them. To credit such a defense would set similarly situated employees to lightly discharge their duty of employing reasonable skill and diligence and thus evade administrative liability. The Court stressed that clerks of court perform a delicate function as designated custodians of the court's funds, revenues, records, properties, and premises. They wear many hats, those of treasurer, accountant, guard, and physical plant manager of the court, and are entrusted with the primary responsibility of correctly and effectively implementing regulations regarding fiduciary funds. They are thus liable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of such funds and property.

On the third issue, the Court accepted the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. Considering that this was the respondents' first offense, and following its rulings in several cases involving neglect of duty, the Court imposed a fine of five thousand pesos on each of them.

Doctrine

A clerk of court is the designated custodian of the court's funds, revenues, records, properties, and premises, and is entrusted with the primary responsibility of correctly and effectively implementing regulations regarding fiduciary funds. As an accountable officer, the clerk is liable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of such funds and property. The duty of supervision over subordinates in the handling of collections is not satisfied by perfunctory reliance on monthly reports or on the fact that deposits match collections. Lack of knowledge of accounting procedures is not a valid defense to a charge of neglect of duty, because it would allow employees to lightly discharge the diligence the law demands. Simple neglect of duty is punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense, but a fine may be imposed in the alternative.

Disposition

The Court found Marlon Roque and Anita Nunag guilty of simple neglect of duty and fined each of them five thousand pesos, admonished Nunag to closely monitor and strengthen internal control over the financial transactions of the court, and warned both that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a clerk of court is the custodian of the court's funds and is liable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of those funds, and that ignorance of accounting is no excuse. Examiners like to use this case to test the standard of diligence of clerks of court and the rule that reliance on audit findings and on subordinates does not relieve them of administrative liability.