G.R. No. A.M. No. P-07-2291 ; June 25, 2007
COMMISSION ON AUDIT-REGION VI, complainant, vs. RENAN VILLANUEVA PAMPOSA, Clerk of Court II, MTCC, Passi City, Iloilo, respondent.

FACTS

Pursuant to a COA reassignment order, State Auditor Haydee Pasuelo examined the cash accounts of the MTCC in Passi City. The audits conducted in 2001 and 2002 revealed that respondent Clerk of Court II, Renan Villanueva Pamposa, incurred cash shortages amounting to P355,896.00. Demand letters sent to him were returned unserved. The COA forwarded the case to the Office of the Ombudsman (Visayas), which subsequently endorsed the administrative complaint to the Supreme Court, invoking the Court’s exclusive administrative supervision over court personnel.
The Court then directed Pamposa to comment on the complaint. He failed to comply and had been absent without official leave (AWOL) since December 2001, leading the Court to drop his name from the rolls and declare his position vacant. A subsequent financial audit by the Court Management Office in 2003 uncovered even larger shortages: P932,990.00 in the Fiduciary Fund, P80,702.74 in the Judiciary Development Fund, and P30,619.88 in the General Fund, totaling P1,044,312.62. The Court issued resolutions directing restitution, advising the judge to monitor the acting clerk, and issuing a hold departure order against Pamposa, whose whereabouts remained unknown.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Renan Villanueva Pamposa is administratively liable for the cash shortages in his custody.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross dishonesty and grave misconduct. The legal logic is anchored on the fiduciary nature of a Clerk of Court’s duties as custodian of court funds. Clerks of Court are cashiers and disbursement officers mandated to immediately deposit collected funds to authorized government depositories. They are not authorized to keep funds in their personal custody. Consequently, any loss, shortage, or impairment of these funds renders the accountable officer liable.
The Court found the audit findings conclusive. Pamposa’s failure to submit an answer to the charges, his absence without leave, and his flight—evidenced by unserved demand letters and his unknown whereabouts—constitute an implied admission of guilt. These actions are contrary to the behavior of an innocent person confronting serious accusations. The fact that he was earlier dropped from the rolls for being AWOL does not preclude the resolution of the administrative case, which was filed prior to that action. The Court retains jurisdiction to impose the appropriate administrative penalty.
Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dishonesty and grave misconduct are grave offenses punishable by dismissal even for a first offense. Therefore, respondent is DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits, which are to be applied to the shortage), with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency. He is also ordered to restitute the total shortage of P1,044,312.62.