RE: REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, LABO, CAMARINES NORTE
Law: Political Law-Administrative Law
Cited Law/Order: OCA Circular No. 32-939, OCA Circular No. 113-04, OCA Circular No. 50-95, SC A.C. No. 3-0027, Commission on Audit and Department of Finance (COA-DOF) Joint Circular 1-81, 1991 Manual for Clerks of Court, 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court A.M. No. 02-5-07-SC, Revised Rules of Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
Issue: Gross Neglect of Duty, Gross dishonesty
Famous statement from this jurisprudence:
As a Clerk of Court, a vital post in the hierarchy of positions in the trial court, Rosare was expected to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity court’s good name and standing is undisputed.
FACTS:
In November 2014, the Audit Team conducted an audit of the cash and accounts of Rosare, disclosed that Rosare’s cash on hand in the amount of P154,080.00 did not correspond with the unremitted or undeposited collections on all funds in the amount of P222,484.00, resulted in a shortage of P68,404.00.
Rosare likewise failed to deposit her collections within the day or the next banking day.
Rosare was reminded to issue receipts for every STF transaction on a per case basis and reported separately.
Presiding Judge Salvador C. Villarosa, Jr. of MTC Labo was requested to assign a court personnel who can assist Rosare in handling financial transactions.
On February 16, 2017, Rosare was relieved from her position as Clerk ofCourt and her authority to receive, collect and withdraw any court fund was suspended effective immediately.
In February 2017, the Audit Team conducted another audit ofRosare’s books of accounts
An inventory of the cash on hand in the amount ofP23,625.00 and its corresponding official receipts revealed that MTC Labo has not been depositing its daily collections as per circulars issued by the Court. After the audit, the Audit Team found that Rosare had a shortage of P456,470.381.
ISSUE:
I. Whether or not Rosare should be held administratively liable for the acts.
II. Whether or not Rosare’s act constitute gross dishonesty and gross neglect of duty
RULING:
I. Yes. Rosare is liable.
Rosare failed to perform with utmost diligence her responsibilities as Clerk of Court from OCA Circular No. 32-93, OCA Circular No. 113-04, OCA Circular No. 50-95, SC A.C. No. 3-0027, OCA Circular No. 32-9328, COA-DOF Joint Circular No. 1-81, SC A.C. No. 3-00, SC A.C. No. 3-2000.
Her failure to promptly remit her fiduciary collections was in flagrant violation of the said circulars.
II. Yes, it constitutes gross dishonesty and gross neglect of duty which is punishable with dismissal pursuant to the Revised Rules of Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
Dishonesty is defined as intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration, appointment or promotion.
Dishonesty, like bad faith, is not simply bad judgment or negligence, but a question of intention.
In ascertaining the intention of a person accused of dishonesty, consideration must be taken not only of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the act committed by the respondent, but also of his state of mind at the time the offense was committed, the time he might have had at his disposal for the purpose of meditating on the consequences of his act, and the degree of reasoning he could have had at that moment
Rosare’s act of misappropriating court funds, as evidenced by the shortages in her accounts, by delaying or not remitting or delaying the deposit of the court collections within the prescribed period constitutes dishonesty which is definitely an act unbecoming of a court personnel.
Failure ofRosare to remit funds upon demand by an authorized without any justifiable reason constitutes prima facie evidence that she has put such missing funds or property to personal use.
As a Clerk of Court, a vital post in the hierarchy of positions in the triall court, Rosare was expected to live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity court’s good name and standing is undisputed.
Final Order of the Court:
ROSARE IS GUILTY of DISHONESTY and GROSS NEGLECT OF DUTY, and, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSES her from the service with forfeiture ofall retirement benefits (excluding earned leave credits), with prejudice to her re- employment in the Government, including government-owned or government- controlled corporations.
Respondent Eden P. Rosare is further ordered to RESTITUTE the total amount ofP456,470.38
Finally, the Court DIRECTS the Office of the Court Administrator to file with dispatch the appropriate criminal charges against Eden P. Rosare.
Lesson of this case:
Any Government Employee must follow rules, especially issuances pertaining to money disposal. Non-compliance of such suffice that the employee is presumed that the funds was used for personal consumption.
Full text of the case: https://juanbatas.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/am_p-21-4102_2021.pdf
Cited Jurisprudence:
Office of the Court Administrator v. Canque
Office of the Court Administrator v. Banag
Office of the Court Administrator v. Besa
Civil Service Commission v. Perocho, Jr.
Villar v. Angeles
Gutierrez v. Quitalig
No comments:
Post a Comment