A.M. No. P-01-1499. September 26, 2006.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. ATTY. MARILOU DUREZA-ALDEVERA, Clerk of Court, RTC, Davao City, and TERESITA M. ELEGINO, Cash Clerk III, same Court, respondents.

FACTS

This administrative case arose from a surprise audit conducted in April 2000 and February 2001 on the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC, Davao City, due to reports of fiscal irregularities. The audit initially revealed shortages in the Sheriff’s General Fund (P2,959.21) and Sheriff’s Trust Fund (P229,283.85), which Cash Clerk Teresita M. Elegino later restituted. A subsequent and more comprehensive audit of the Fiduciary Fund uncovered a massive shortage of P8,790,552.30. The audit found that collections were not deposited within the prescribed period, official receipts were not issued, and fund transfers were improperly recorded.
Respondent Atty. Marilou Dureza-Aldevera, the Clerk of Court, denied personal knowledge or participation in the irregularities. She argued that Elegino, who had long handled cash operations, employed a modus operandi undetectable by normal supervision and that she exercised due diligence. She emphasized that she secured an undertaking from Elegino assuming full accountability and facilitated the recovery of some amounts.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Atty. Marilou Dureza-Aldevera and Teresita M. Elegino are administratively liable for the cash shortages and infractions discovered in their office.

RULING

Yes, both respondents are guilty of gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and grave misconduct. The Court dismissed them from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment, and ordered them to jointly and severally restitute the Fiduciary Fund shortage of P8,790,552.30.
The legal logic is anchored on the fiduciary nature of a clerk of court’s duties as a custodian of court funds and property. As Clerk of Court, Atty. Aldevera was primarily responsible for the proper administration and safeguarding of all court funds. Her duty of supervision is personal and cannot be delegated. The Court found her defense of due diligence unavailing. The sheer magnitude and duration of the shortages, the failure to ensure timely deposits as mandated by circulars, and the improper recording of transactions constituted a blatant failure of her managerial and supervisory responsibilities. Her reliance on Elegino’s undertaking did not exonerate her; it instead highlighted her failure to institute and enforce proper internal controls. For her part, Elegino, as the cash clerk directly handling the funds, was clearly culpable for the actual misappropriation and falsification of records. Their collective actions demonstrated a pattern of gross neglect, dishonesty, and grave misconduct prejudicial to the service, warranting the supreme penalty of dismissal.