UNKNOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCILOR OF STO. DOMINGO, NUEVA ECIJA, COMPLAINANT, VS. MARIO V. ALOMIA, JR., RESPONDENT.

Respondent clerk of court of the Municipal Trial Court of Sto.
Domingo, Nueva Ecija was accused in an anonymous letter-complaint dated August
23, 1991, addressed to this Court, of the following acts of misconduct and
dishonesty, to wit: 1) failure to submit
monthly collection reports; 2) pocketing collections for his own use; 3)
collecting P50.00 for a simple order of dismissal of a criminal case; and 4)
infidelity in the custody of Court exhibits particularly handguns which are
report­edly missing (Rollo, p.3). The
same letter-complaint further prayed for an investigation and auditing of the
said municipal trial court.

In a First Indorsement dated September 11, 1991, Deputy Court
Administrator Reynaldo Suarez referred the matter to Judge Efren B. Mallare,
Presiding Judge of the MTC Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija for investigation (Rollo,
p.1).

Pursuant to the aforementioned indorsement from the Deputy Court
Administrator, a Memorandum was issued by Judge Mallare directing the
respondent Alomia, Jr. to file his answer and/or comment on the complaint
lodged against him. In compliance,
respondent filed a verified
answer denominated “Affidavit of Merits”
(Rollo, p.5) denying the allegations in the complaint, and alleging
among others, the following:

1. He had submitted a
report of collections as well as remitted all amounts collected as of July 1991
to the Accounting Division of this Court.

2. All exhibits which were
turned-over to him by his predecessor, Dante Tesoro, particularly the handguns,
were in the steel cabinet of the trial court, and none is missing; and

3. The accusation that he
collected P50.00 for the dismissal of criminal cases has no basis.

Thereafter, an investigation of the case was conducted. Witnesses were heard and evidence was
admitted during the hearings before Judge Mallare.

In a “Second Indorsement” dated November 6, 1991, (Rollo, p. 107)
Judge Efren B. Mallare made a report of his findings, to wit:

“The undersigned after a thorough
investiga­tion x x x respectfully submits the following established facts:

“Regarding the accusation that Mario V. Alomia, Jr. has been
pocketing and not submitting his monthly collections commencing from January,
1991 up to August 23, 1991, the date when the unknown (sic) letter was sent to
His Honor, is not quite correct because after verifying the records, Mr.Alomia
was able to produce monthly collections commencing from January, 1991 to August
1991 although it appearing (sic) from the said monthly collections that Mr.
Alomia did not comply with the Circular of the Hon. Supreme Court which
categorically States that Monthly Report of Col­lections shall be remitted to
the Accounting Division of the Supreme Court within ten (10) days after the end
of the month as Mr. Alomia’s monthly collections from January 1991 to August
1991 inclusive, or for a period of eight (8) months were only remitted on
August 27, 1991. x x x . Although Mr. Alomia has admitted that during
the time that he was waiting for the other collec­tions, he also spent some of
the collections but later on reimbursed all the monies received by him and that
of his other co-employees and were all remitted to the Hon. Supreme Court.

“Regarding the missing exhibits particularly the handguns, Mr.
Alomia has requested ample time within which to locate the missing firearms as
the Presiding Judge has discovered from the records of all the cases involving
illegal possession of firearms that four (4) firearms which were all exhibits
in four criminal cases were missing from the files of the Court. x x x.

“The investigation conducted x x x completely belies the statement
of Mr. Alomia that no firearms were turned over to him x x x.

“The records show that on October 17, 1991, Mr. Alomia, Jr. brought
to the Court one paltik Cal. 12 shotgun, which was one of the exhibits x x x
and according to said Clerk of Court he has taken the said firearm from Fr.
Evaristo Cupatan x x x, said Father Cupatan has testified in this case.

“From the evidence x x x it indubitably appeared (sic) that Mr.
Mario V. Alomia, Jr. the Clerk of Court of this Court, has been an instru­ment
(sic) for the loss of various exhibits from this Court and so on November 4,
1991, he revealed the whereabouts of the missing firearms by submit­ting to
this Court an “Affidavit”. x x x.

“Furthermore, x x x the undersigned has discovered that exhibits
involving monies in illegal gambling cases x x x after the cases were dismissed
and sent to the archives, were spent and utilized by Mr. Alomia for the repair
of the typewriter belonging to the Hon. Supreme Court; and some monies used as
exhibits were either missing or deposited with the Municipal Treasurer of Sto.
Domingo, Nueva Ecija.

“Likewise it has been discovered by the undersigned that in order
that Mr. Mario V. Alomia could comply with his obligation to make remit­tance
on his monthly collections report he has to issue original copies of official
receipts to himself and then submitted the duplicate copy to the Supreme Court.

“x x x (S)ince the appointment of Mr. Alomia as Clerk of Court x x
x the undersigned has discovered that he was receiving civil cases without
requiring the party plaintiff or representative to pay the filing and other
legal fees on the date of the filing of the civil complaint.

“The  Clerk of Court received
filing fees without the civil complaint filed with this Court.

“Carpeta in Civil Case No. 1444 was (sic) missing and the Clerk of
Court admitted that he returned it to plaintiff’s counsel for lack of annexes,
but (up to the filing of Second Indorsement) said carpeta has not yet been returned
to this Court.

“The undersigned is not in a position to know whether conspiracy
has been committed x x x by the former Clerk of Court Dante S. Tesoro, now the
Legal Researcher of Branch 29, RTC, Cabanatuan City; the Clerk of Court, Mario
V. Alomia, Jr., and the former Acting Judge x x x Hon. Tertulo A. Mendoza,
Presiding Judge of the MCTC, Quezon-­Licab, Nueva Ecija; and therefore (the
matter is being submitted) to the sound discretion of the Hon. Supreme Court
through the Hon. Reynaldo L. Suarez.”

On March 13, 1992, the Office of the Court Administrator through
Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez made the following
recommendations:

“1. The findings of Judge Mallare as a result of
the investigation he conducted be ratified; and 2. respondent Sheriff (sic) be
dis­missed from the service.”

We agree.

It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance
warranting removal from office of an officer, must have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of
official duties, amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional
neglect and failure to discharge the duties of the office (Sarigumba vs. Pasok,
155 SCRA 646 [1987]).

In the case at bar, respondent as clerk of court of a municipal
trial court is required by reason of his official duties to safely keep all
records and public property committed to his custody as provided under Sec. 7,
Rule 136, Rules of Court, to wit:

“Sec. 7. Safekeeping of
property – The clerk of court shall keep all records, papers, files, exhibits
and public property committed to his charge, including the library of the
court, and the seals and furniture belonging to his office.”

Section 12 of the same Rule directs the clerk of court to keep
such other books and perform such other duties as the court may direct.

The investigation of conducted by Judge Mallare shows that
respondent Alomia, Jr. was negligent in the performance of his official
duties. He failed to render utmost
dedication and honesty to his job. The
exhibits which were turned over to his custody, particularly the firearms and
ammunition, are missing. Likewise, the
duplicate copies of Monthly Collection Reports for 1988, 1989, and 1990 were
lost (Rollo, p. 40). Monies in his
custody, were spent by him for unauthorized expenditures. He failed to perform other duties ascribed
to him by reason of his office, such as the submission of the Monthly Report of
Collections within ten (10) days after the end of the month for which the
report corresponds; receiving civil cases for filing only after seeing to it
that all legal fees have been paid and receiv­ing filing fees only after the
corresponding complaints have been filed.

In the case of Montemayor vs. Collado (107 SCRA 258 [1981]), this
Court ruled:

“The conduct and behavior of everyone con­nected with an office
charged with dispensation of justice, like the courts below, from the presiding
judge to the lowest clerk, should be circumscribed with responsibility. His conduct, at all times, must not only be
characterized by propriety and above all must be above suspicion.”

Considering that the duties of the clerk of court are vast as well
as sensitive, this Court has ruled in Bello vs. Mabbun (Adm. Matter P-88-178,
[1988]) that there is need for utmost integ­rity and dedication in the
performance of such functions. Again,
in Ablanida vs. Intia (Adm. Matter R-770-P [1988]) We ruled that acts of
dishonesty cannot be countenanced, especially when it is committed by an
employee of the judiciary who ought be an example of integrity, uprightness,
and honesty.

The Civil Service Law (P.D. No. 807) covers government employees,
including herein respondent Clerk of Court. Respondent’s misconduct, misfeasance or malfeasance in the performance
of his official duties consisting of dishonesty; inefficiency and incompetence in
the performance of official duties; and conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service, are grounds for dismissal under Section 36 (b) pars.
(1), (8), and (27).

WHEREFORE, respondent Mario V. Alomia, Jr. is hereby DIS­MISSED
from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, and with prejudice to
re-employment in any agency of the govern­ment including government-owned or
controlled corporations.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin,
Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, and Bellosillo, JJ., concur.