OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MONA LISA A. BUENCAMINO, CLERK OF COURT IV, DAVID E. MANIQUIS, CLERK OF COURT III, AND CIELITO M. MAPUE, SHERIFF III, A…

Office of the Court Administrator versus Buencamino

The Case

This is an administrative matter arising from a financial audit of the books of accounts of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City. The Office of the Court Administrator, the audit arm of the Supreme Court, proceeded against three court personnel: Atty. Mona Lisa Buencamino, Clerk of Court IV; David Maniquis, Clerk of Court III and former Officer-in-Charge; and Cielito Mapue, Sheriff III. The case matters because it fixes the accountability of a clerk of court as custodian of court funds, and it reminds every reviewee that restitution after discovery does not erase dishonesty.

Procedural History

The matter began as a financial audit conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator on the books of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City. In a Resolution dated 3 August 2005, the Supreme Court, upon the recommendation of the audit team and the Office of the Court Administrator, directed the respondents to restitute shortages, submit documents on undocumented fiduciary fund withdrawals, explain the failure to supervise, and withdraw fiduciary deposits from the City Treasurer's Office. The report was later docketed as a regular administrative matter against Mapue, and in a Resolution dated 19 November 2007 the Court converted the audit report into an administrative matter against Buencamino and Maniquis and included them as respondents. The respondents manifested their willingness to submit the matter for resolution on the pleadings. In its Memorandum dated 18 February 2013, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended findings of simple neglect of duty against Buencamino and Maniquis and serious dishonesty against Mapue. The case was resolved by the Supreme Court in its decision of January 2014.

Facts

The audit covered the transactions of Maniquis from January 1993 to June 1996, and of his successor Buencamino from June 1996 onward. As of the cut-off date of 31 December 2003, the Judiciary Development Fund had a cash shortage of 20,917 pesos and 93 centavos, the Clerk of Court General Fund had a shortage of 1,574 pesos and 30 centavos, and the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund had a shortage of 238 pesos. Of these, Maniquis was accountable for 9,425 pesos and 93 centavos in the Judiciary Development Fund and 352 pesos and 50 centavos in the General Fund, while Buencamino was accountable for 11,492 pesos in the Judiciary Development Fund, 1,221 pesos and 80 centavos in the General Fund, and 238 pesos in the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund. In January 2004, Buencamino settled her accountabilities in the Judiciary Development Fund and the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund, leaving a balance in the General Fund.

The audit also found unwithdrawn fiduciary funds deposited with the Caloocan City Treasurer's Office amounting to 858,666 pesos and 97 centavos as of May 1992, and undocumented fiduciary fund withdrawals, including 202,720 pesos attributable to Buencamino and 289,500 pesos attributable to Maniquis. There was neither a list nor a summary of confiscated bonds with deposit slips, nor proof of remittance and official receipts, as required for audit. Official receipts were not issued for withdrawn interest amounting to 769,316 pesos and 84 centavos, although the amount was remitted.

Mapue, then Clerk III, withdrew several confiscated bonds amounting to 10,100 pesos and converted them to her personal use. She also withdrew confiscated bonds twice: the first, amounting to 48,000 pesos, she converted to her personal use, and the second she deposited to the Judiciary Development Fund. Upon order of the audit team, she restituted a total of 58,100 pesos. In her letter dated 10 March 2004, she admitted misappropriating the amount to defray personal expenses and admitted misusing judicial funds from November 1996 until 2000, during Buencamino's term. Buencamino, for her part, blamed her subordinate Sabater, to whom she had delegated monitoring, and blamed the Court for the lack of orientation seminars for newly appointed clerks of court. Notably, Buencamino even recommended Mapue for promotion to Sheriff III after Mapue's admission.

Issues

• Whether or not Mapue is guilty of serious dishonesty for misappropriating confiscated bonds, and whether her restitution exonerates or mitigates her liability.
• Whether or not Buencamino is liable for simple neglect of duty for failing to supervise Mapue and manage the court funds entrusted to her.
• Whether or not Maniquis, as former Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Clerk of Court, is liable for the shortages in the funds entrusted to him by virtue of his office.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1 of Article Eleven of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

This is the constitutional standard against which the conduct of all court personnel is measured in this case.

Rule IV, Section 52(A)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

Gross dishonesty is a grave offense and merits the penalty of dismissal even for the first offense.

This is the provision the Court applies to Mapue's admitted misappropriation of judicial funds.

Rule IV, Section 52(B)(1) of the same Uniform Rules provides:

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

This is the provision the Court applies to Buencamino and Maniquis in fixing their penalties.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found Mapue guilty of serious dishonesty. Her admission in her sworn statement of misappropriating court funds showed blatant disregard of the principles of public office she had sworn to uphold. Her restitution of the total amount did not exonerate or mitigate her liability, because it was done only after the discovery of the misappropriation. She had also deprived the Court of the interest otherwise earned had the confiscated bonds been deposited in the General Fund or the Judiciary Development Fund. Gross dishonesty is a grave offense and merits dismissal even for the first offense.

On the second issue, the Court found Buencamino guilty of simple neglect of duty. A clerk of court has general administrative supervision over all the personnel of the court, and as custodian of court funds and revenues is primarily accountable for all funds collected for the court, whether personally received by him or by a duly appointed cashier under his supervision and control. Buencamino failed to supervise Mapue and to properly manage the funds entrusted to her, enabling the misappropriation. Her attempt to pass responsibility to Sabater was misplaced, and she could not blame the Court for her lack of knowledge of the financial duties of a clerk of court. The Court defined the offense:

Simple neglect of duty is the failure to give attention to a task, or the disregard of a duty due to carelessness or indifference.

Following a prior audit case in Catarman, Northern Samar, where a six-month suspension was imposed for neglect leading to the defalcation of court funds, the Court adopted the same penalty.

On the third issue, the Court found Maniquis equally liable. As former Officer-in-Charge of the Office of the Clerk of Court, he bore the same responsibilities and was expected to serve with the same commitment and efficiency as a duly appointed Clerk of Court, and so must be held liable for any loss or shortage of the funds entrusted to him by virtue of his office. Considering that this was his first offense, the Court adopted the recommended penalty of suspension for one month and one day.

Doctrine

A clerk of court has general administrative supervision over all the personnel of the court, and as custodian of court funds and revenues is primarily accountable for all funds collected for the court, whether personally received by him or by a duly appointed cashier under his supervision and control. Failure to properly supervise and manage the financial transactions of the court constitutes simple neglect of duty, which is the failure to give attention to a task, or the disregard of a duty due to carelessness or indifference, a less grave offense punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense. Gross dishonesty is a grave offense and merits dismissal even for the first offense, and restitution made after discovery does not exonerate or mitigate the liability of the erring employee. All of this rests on the constitutional command that public office is a public trust, and the demand for moral uprightness is more pronounced for members and personnel of the judiciary.

Disposition

The Court found Buencamino and Maniquis guilty of simple neglect of duty and suspended them for six months and for one month and one day, respectively, found Mapue guilty of serious dishonesty and dismissed her from the service with forfeiture of benefits except accrued leave credits and disqualification from public office, and directed the Office of the Court Administrator to file the appropriate criminal action against Mapue.

Remember This

Remember the line that a clerk of court is primarily accountable for all funds collected for the court, whether received personally or by a cashier under his supervision, and that restitution after discovery does not wipe out dishonesty. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between simple neglect of duty and serious dishonesty, and the penalties attached to each.