RE: REPORT OF REGIONAL COORDINATOR FELIPE KALALO ON ALLEGED ANOMALIES INVOLVING JDF COLLECTIONS IN MTCC, ANGELES CITY AND MCTC, MINALIN, PAMPANGA.

Re: Report of Regional Coordinator Felipe Kalalo on Alleged Anomalies Involving JDF Collections

The Case

This is an administrative matter that began as a report of irregularities in the collection and remittance of the Judiciary Development Fund, the fund fed by legal fees collected by the courts. The report reached the Supreme Court through the Office of the Court Administrator and was treated as an administrative complaint against Josephine Calaguas, the records officer who handled the fund collections in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Angeles City. The case matters to every bar candidate because it is the Court speaking in its own house: it fixes the standard of honesty and accountability owed by court personnel who hold public funds, and it shows that full restitution after the fact does not wipe out the offense.

Procedural History

There was no trial court and no Court of Appeals in this matter. It is an original administrative proceeding before the Supreme Court. The Judiciary Planning Development Implementation Office transmitted to the Court Administrator the urgent report of its regional coordinator, Justice Felipe Kalalo, on alleged anomalies in fund collections in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sto. Tomas and Minalin, Pampanga, and in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Angeles City. In its resolution of 25 July 1995, the Supreme Court directed the Office of the Court Administrator to conduct a financial audit, treated the report as an administrative complaint against Calaguas, required her to answer, preventively suspended her pending investigation, and ordered her salaries and benefits withheld. After the audit and after Calaguas filed her answer, the Office of the Court Administrator submitted its memorandum and recommendations to the Chief Justice, and the Court rendered this decision.

Facts

In the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Sto. Tomas and Minalin, Pampanga, the audit showed that former Clerk of Court Rhodora Reyes failed to remit fund collections during her tenure from 1989 to 1994, with total unremitted collections of 28,995 pesos. Reyes resigned on 15 November 1994, and her whereabouts thereafter remained unknown.

In the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Angeles City, Records Officer Josephine Calaguas, then officer in charge of fund collections, reportedly embezzled 92,737 pesos. When Justice Kalalo asked her on 23 May 1995 to produce the cash book and her collections, she said she was still updating the entries at home. The next day, Justice Kalalo found her preparing deposit slips covering the misappropriated amount, and she admitted that she had already spent the collections. The audit showed that after the last audit in January 1992, Calaguas always had an unfavorable balance of accountability every year, and that substantial amounts were deposited only after the visit of Justice Kalalo. She later deposited 94,709 pesos, with deposit slips all dated 25 May 1995.

In her answer dated 5 September 1995, Calaguas admitted using the collections for the medical treatment of her father, who was suffering from cancer. She pleaded for dismissal of the complaint and promised to be more true, faithful, and honest in the discharge of her duties. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended her dismissal for gross dishonesty, a strong reprimand for Clerk of Court Jesus Miranda for failure to supervise his personnel, exoneration of incumbent Clerk of Court Alma Mamaril, and referral of the findings on Reyes to the Provincial Prosecutor of Pampanga.

Issues

• Whether or not Josephine Calaguas is administratively liable for dishonesty in the handling of Judiciary Development Fund collections, and whether her full restitution of the amount excuses her.
• Whether or not Clerk of Court Jesus Miranda is administratively liable for failing to supervise the court personnel under him, even if he was not directly tasked with the fund collections.
• Whether or not incumbent Clerk of Court Alma Mamaril may be held liable for the unremitted collections of her predecessors.

Applicable Provisions

Administrative Circular Number 31-90, dated 15 October 1990, governs the deposit of fund collections, and the Court cites it as the standard Calaguas failed to meet:

Amounts accruing to the Judiciary Development Fund shall be deposited daily with an authorized government depository bank, or private bank owned or controlled by the government as so specified by the Chief Justice, for the account of the Judiciary Development Fund, Supreme Court, Manila. If daily deposit is not possible, deposit for the Fund shall be made every second and third Fridays and at the end of every month; provided, however, that whenever collections for the Fund reach 500 pesos, the amount should be deposited immediately even before the above-indicated dates. If there is no authorized depository bank at the place where the court is stationed, the collections are to be sent by postal money order payable to the Chief Accountant of the Supreme Court.

This circular fixes the deadlines Calaguas admittedly missed, and it is the measure of her failure to remit on time.

Section 9, Rule Fourteen of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book Five of Executive Order Number 292, the Administrative Code of 1987, fixes the consequences of the penalty the Court imposes:

The penalty of dismissal shall carry with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and the disqualification for reemployment in the government service.

The Court applies this provision in cancelling Calaguas's civil service eligibility, if any, and in barring her re-employment in government.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found Calaguas guilty of dishonesty and imposed dismissal from the service. It held that her admitted failure to remit fund collections on time was a clear violation of the circular, and it rejected the argument of restitution: the fact that she did ultimately restore the full amount misappropriated certainly cannot in full exonerate her from liability. The Court grounded its ruling on the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust, and it stressed that a public servant is expected to exhibit, at all times, the highest degree of honesty and integrity and should be made accountable to all those whom he serves.

On the second issue, the Court reprimanded Clerk of Court Jesus Miranda. It found that he had shown indifference in handling the problem, and it held that the fact that he was not directly tasked with fund collections did not excuse him from his duty to oversee and supervise court personnel within his area of responsibility.

On the third issue, the Court exonerated Clerk of Court Alma Mamaril from any administrative liability relative to the fund collections of her predecessors, since the unremitted amounts belonged to the tenures of those who came before her.

Doctrine

First, a public office is a public trust, and every public servant must exhibit at all times the highest degree of honesty and integrity. Second, court personnel tasked with collecting the Judiciary Development Fund must deposit collections within the periods fixed by Administrative Circular Number 31-90, and failure to remit on time is dishonesty for which dismissal lies. Third, restitution of the full amount misappropriated does not exonerate the erring employee; it may mitigate, but it does not erase, the administrative offense. Fourth, a clerk of court is duty-bound to supervise the personnel under him, and indifference to irregularities in his office, even in matters not directly assigned to him, is itself a ground for administrative sanction. Fifth, the penalty of dismissal carries with it cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of leave credits and retirement benefits, and disqualification from re-employment in the government service.

Disposition

The Court dismissed Josephine Calaguas from the service for dishonesty with forfeiture of all leave credits and retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency, reprimanded Clerk of Court Jesus Miranda, exonerated Clerk of Court Alma Mamaril, and furnished the Department of Justice a copy of the decision for its information and guidance.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a public office is a public trust, and that full restitution does not exonerate the erring collector. Examiners use this case to test the administrative liability of court personnel for fund collections, the supervisorial duty of clerks of court, and the collateral effects of dismissal under the Omnibus Rules.