This Supreme Court decision underscores the critical responsibility of Clerks of Court in managing and safeguarding public funds. The Court found Atty. Marilou Dureza-Aldevera and Cash Clerk Teresita M. Elegino guilty of gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and grave misconduct due to a significant shortage in the Fiduciary Fund. This ruling reinforces the principle that Clerks of Court, as custodians of court funds, must be held accountable for any loss or shortage, ensuring public trust in the justice system.
When Court Funds Vanish: Who Bears the Burden of Accountability?
This case arose from a financial audit conducted in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City, which revealed substantial shortages in the Office of the Clerk of Court. The audit team, acting on reports of fiscal irregularities, discovered a significant discrepancy in the Fiduciary Fund, amounting to P9,428,478.75. Further investigation revealed multiple infractions, including the encashment of checks from legal fees, failure to issue official receipts, and non-compliance with regulations on depositing daily collections. These issues prompted the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to file an administrative case against Atty. Marilou Dureza-Aldevera, the Clerk of Court, and Teresita M. Elegino, the Cash Clerk III.
Atty. Aldevera, in her defense, claimed that the anomalies were committed by Elegino without her knowledge or participation. She argued that Elegino had been performing the duties of a cash clerk long before her appointment and that she exercised due diligence in supervising her. Atty. Aldevera also pointed to an Undertaking signed by Elegino, assuming full accountability for any shortages. However, Elegino later repudiated this Undertaking, claiming she signed it under pressure from Atty. Aldevera. The Court tasked Justice Romulo S. Quimbo (Ret.) to investigate and report on the matter, leading to hearings and the presentation of evidence.
The Court emphasized that the Clerk of Court has general administrative supervision over all court personnel and is the designated custodian of the Court’s funds. As such, Atty. Aldevera was responsible for ensuring that Elegino performed her duties in accordance with established circulars and regulations. The Court cited the 1991 Manual for Clerks of Court and the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, stating that a Clerk of Court found short of money accountabilities may be dismissed from the service. This underscored the high standard of responsibility placed on Clerks of Court regarding financial management. Building on this principle, the Court referenced previous cases where similar penalties were imposed for failing to properly manage court funds, emphasizing the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining public accountability.
Moreover, the court found that Atty. Aldevera violated several provisions of the Government Accounting and Auditing Manual and Court Circulars. Specifically, she failed to ensure the daily deposit of collections exceeding P500, as mandated by Section 111 of the Government Auditing Rules and Regulations. Similarly, she did not comply with Circular No. 50-95, which requires the deposit of all collections from bail bonds and other fiduciary collections within 24 hours. Furthermore, Atty. Aldevera did not submit monthly reports of collections as required by Circular No. 32-93, nor did her office issue official receipts for significant Fiduciary Fund collections. These failures, in the Court’s view, constituted gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct.
The Court also addressed the liability of respondent Elegino, noting that despite being given the opportunity, she failed to refute the charges against her adequately. Even though she submitted an Affidavit and a Manifestation, Elegino did not present evidence to challenge the accuracy of the audit findings. The Court found that her failure to properly carry out her duties as cash clerk contributed to the shortage of P8,790,552.30 in the Fiduciary Fund, holding her equally accountable. Due process, the court clarified, was not violated as Elegino was given every chance to present her side, highlighting the fairness of the proceedings despite her lack of engagement. By finding both respondents guilty, the Court affirmed that the responsibility for safeguarding public funds is shared and that both supervisory and subordinate personnel will be held accountable for failures in financial management.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The central issue was the accountability of court personnel, specifically the Clerk of Court and Cash Clerk, for a significant shortage in the Fiduciary Fund of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Davao City. The Court determined whether they were liable for gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and grave misconduct due to the missing funds. |
| What is a Fiduciary Fund? | A Fiduciary Fund consists of cash bonds, rental deposits, and other monies consigned to the court. These funds are held in trust and are to be disbursed or returned to the depositors once the purpose for which they were deposited no longer exists. |
| What were the main infractions committed by the respondents? | The infractions included allowing the encashment of checks from legal fees, failure to present the full amount of the Fiduciary Fund upon demand, non-issuance of official receipts, and failure to submit monthly reports of collections, deposits, and withdrawals. These actions violated government accounting rules and Court Circulars. |
| What was Atty. Aldevera’s defense? | Atty. Aldevera argued that the anomalies were committed by Elegino without her knowledge, and she had exercised due diligence in supervising her. She also claimed that Elegino had signed an Undertaking assuming full responsibility for any shortages. |
| Why did the Court reject Atty. Aldevera’s defense? | The Court rejected her defense because, as the Clerk of Court, she had the responsibility for general administrative supervision over all personnel and was the custodian of the Court’s funds. Her failure to ensure compliance with regulations made her accountable for the shortage. |
| What was the significance of Circular No. 50-95? | Circular No. 50-95 requires all collections from bail bonds, rental deposits, and other fiduciary collections to be deposited within twenty-four (24) hours upon receipt. The respondents failed to comply with this circular. |
| What penalties were imposed on the respondents? | Both Atty. Marilou Dureza-Aldevera and Teresita M. Elegino were found guilty of gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and grave misconduct and were dismissed from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits. They were also ordered to jointly and severally restitute the amount of P8,790,552.30. |
| What is the duty of a Clerk of Court regarding funds? | The Clerk of Court is primarily accountable for all funds collected for the court, whether received personally or by a duly appointed cashier under their supervision. They are also responsible for the proper recording, depositing, and reporting of these funds. |
The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a potent reminder of the high standards of integrity and diligence required of court personnel, particularly those entrusted with the management of public funds. This case highlights the judiciary’s unwavering commitment to accountability and transparency in the handling of financial resources.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. ATTY. MARILOU DUREZA-ALDEVERA, A.M. NO. P-01-1499, September 26, 2006
Leave a Reply