OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. AL JAMEL E. BARATAMAN, CLERK OF COURT II, SHARI’AH CIRCUIT COURT, MARAWI CITY-SAGUIARAN-KAPAI-TAGALOAN II-PIAGAPO, LANAO DEL …

Office of the Court Administrator versus Barataman

The Case

This is an administrative disciplinary case brought by the Office of the Court Administrator against Al Jamel E. Barataman, Clerk of Court II of the Shari'ah Circuit Court of Marawi City, Saguiaran, Kapai, Tagaloan II and Piagapo in Lanao del Sur. The charge arises from a financial audit of the court's books, which uncovered shortages in the Judiciary Development Fund, the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund, the Mediation Fund, the Sheriff's Trust Fund, the Legal Research Fund and the Victim's Compensation Fund, together with unearned interest and missing official receipts. The case matters because it restates, in the language of the new 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel, the settled rule that a clerk of court is the custodian and trustee of judiciary funds, and that misappropriation, delayed remittance and even full restitution do not excuse administrative liability.

Procedural History

The matter began not with a complaint but with a letter-request of the Accounting Division of the Financial Management Office, prompted by Barataman's continued failure to submit required monthly and quarterly financial reports. The Office of the Court Administrator then conducted a financial audit of the court's books from the middle to the end of April 2024, covering his accountabilities from November 2020 to April 2024, and reported shortages and unearned interest in a memorandum dated September 30, 2024. The Judicial Integrity Board, through its Office of the Executive Director and then its Judicial Integrity Office, directed Barataman to comment, and reiterated the directive by tracer letter; he filed no answer despite repeated directives, and the investigation proceeded on the record. On November 26, 2025, the Judicial Integrity Office issued its Report and Recommendation finding him guilty and recommending dismissal with forfeiture of benefits, perpetual disqualification, cancellation of civil service eligibility, restitution, payment of unearned interest, application of his leave credits, the filing of criminal charges, and strict monitoring by the Presiding Judge. The case then came before the Supreme Court itself, which decided it in February 2026.

Facts

The audit team examined the court's collections and deposits for the Judiciary Development Fund, the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund, the Mediation Fund and the Sheriff's Trust Fund. At the cash examination, Barataman presented neither cash on hand nor a recent deposit slip, and told the team that the collections had been deposited in his personal account. The team reminded him that unremitted collections must be kept in the court's safety vault and remitted regularly. The inventory of official receipts also disclosed that one booklet and seven original copies of unused duplicate and triplicate receipts were missing, and he never presented them.

The audit found a Sheriff's Trust Fund shortage of 32,000 pesos, later reduced to 12,000 pesos after certain electronic payments were credited; a Judiciary Development Fund shortage of 49,176 pesos, reduced to 48,448 pesos after partial restitution; a Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund shortage of 729,867.20 pesos, reduced to 618,895.20 pesos after restitution; a Mediation Fund shortage of 17,000 pesos, reduced to 10,500 pesos; and Legal Research Fund and Victim's Compensation Fund shortages of 210 pesos and 105 pesos. The consolidated shortage stood at 690,158.20 pesos, and the unearned interest on belatedly deposited collections, computed at six percent per annum, stood at 69,750.20 pesos. The team also found that he had failed to issue official receipts for collections on registrations of marriages, conversions, divorces and civil cases, and that he had not submitted the required financial reports for years.

When directed by the Judicial Integrity Office to comment on the charges, Barataman filed nothing, despite a first indorsement and a tracer letter and further repeated directives. His failure was treated as a waiver of his right to participate, and the case was resolved on the evidence on record.

Issues

• Whether or not Barataman should be held administratively liable for gross misconduct, serious dishonesty and gross neglect of duty in relation to the financial audit findings.
• Whether or not his failure to file a comment despite repeated directives amounted to a waiver of his right to participate, consistent with due process.
• Whether or not his partial and belated restitution of the shortages exempted him from administrative liability.

Applicable Provisions

Canon V, Section 19 of the 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel classifies the offenses charged:

Section 19. Serious Offenses. — Serious Offenses include: (a) Gross Misconduct constituting violations of this Code, the Code of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, or the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability for court officials and personnel who are members of the Bar; (e) Serious Dishonesty; (f) Gross Neglect of Duty.

These are the very offenses for which Barataman was charged and found liable.

Canon V, Section 6 of the same Code governs the consequence of his failure to comment:

Section 6. Consequence of Failure to Comment. – Failure of the respondent to file a verified comment shall, unless otherwise justified, result in a waiver of participation in the proceedings, and the investigation may proceed based solely on the complaint and available evidence on record.

This provision supplied the basis for resolving the case despite his silence.

Canon V, Section 2(c) of the Code addresses restitution and settlement:

Section 2. (c) Settlement, restitution, compromise, withdrawal of the complaint or desistance of the complainant shall not interrupt or terminate disciplinary proceedings, absent exceptional circumstances.

This forecloses the argument that his partial repayments extinguished his liability.

Canon V, Section 22 of the Code fixes the penalties for serious offenses:

Section 22. Penalties. – (1) If the respondent is found guilty of a Serious Offense, any of the following penalties shall be imposed: (a) Dismissal from the service.

Dismissal is thus the prescribed penalty for the offenses established against him.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held Barataman liable for gross misconduct, serious dishonesty and gross neglect of duty. It stressed that clerks of court are custodians of court funds, revenues, records, properties and premises, regarded as treasurer, accountant, guard and physical plant manager, and that their work demands the highest degree of competence, honesty and integrity. Any shortage, misappropriation or failure to properly account for judiciary funds constitutes not only dishonesty but also gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct. The Court defined dishonesty as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud, and gross misconduct as improper or wrong conduct, grave when it involves corruption, willful intent to violate the law or disregard of established rules. His deliberate deposit of court collections into his personal account, his unreceipted collections, his missing official receipts and his failure to remit in time were not mere inadvertence but acts of conscious and deliberate intent.

On the second issue, the Court held that due process was complied with. In administrative proceedings, the essence of due process is simply a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard or explain one's side. Barataman was given more than sufficient chances and failed to take them, so the case could be resolved on the record.

On the third issue, the Court held that restitution did not exculpate him. Even full payment of collection shortages will not exempt an accountable officer from liability, and his partial restitution, made belatedly or irregularly, did not negate his administrative liability. He was also liable for the unearned interest of 69,750.20 pesos on belatedly deposited collections.

Doctrine

A clerk of court is the custodian and trustee of judiciary funds, serving as treasurer, accountant, guard and physical plant manager of the court. Any shortage, misappropriation or failure to properly account for judiciary funds constitutes dishonesty, gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct, punishable by dismissal even if committed for the first time. Failure to remit collections and to submit financial reports on time is not mere negligence but a flagrant disregard of basic duties. Restitution, compromise, withdrawal of the complaint or desistance of the complainant does not interrupt or terminate disciplinary proceedings, and even full restitution does not exempt the accountable officer. Finally, the unjustified failure of a respondent to file a verified comment results in a waiver of participation, and the investigation may proceed on the complaint and the available evidence, for the essence of due process is only a fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Disposition

The Court found Barataman guilty of gross misconduct, serious dishonesty and gross neglect of duty, and ordered his dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits, perpetual disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, cancellation of his civil service eligibility, restitution of the shortages and payment of the unearned interest.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a clerk of court is the treasurer, accountant, guard and physical plant manager of court funds, and neither delay nor restitution washes away the liability. Examiners use this case to test the standard of due process in administrative proceedings, the effect of a respondent's failure to comment, and the rule that restitution does not bar disciplinary action.