A.M. No. P-00-1411. November 16, 2001. FELICIDAD JACOB, complainant, vs. JUDITH T. TAMBO, Clerk II, Municipal Trial Court, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Felicidad Jacob, a party in a civil case for redemption, deposited P66,000.00 with the Municipal Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan. Respondent Judith T. Tambo, a Clerk II designated as cash collection clerk, received the amount and issued a receipt. The case was later dismissed, and the court issued orders directing Tambo to refund the deposit to Jacob. Tambo failed to comply. Jacob filed an administrative complaint for dishonesty and/or grave misconduct, alleging Tambo misappropriated the money. In her defense, Tambo admitted receiving the money but claimed she released it on May 7, 1997, to a certain Felicidad Parayno, who presented an authorization letter purportedly signed by Jacob. She argued she acted in good faith. Subsequently, Jacob executed an affidavit of desistance, stating she had recovered the money from Parayno and sought to withdraw her complaint.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judith T. Tambo is administratively liable for her actions concerning the court deposit.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable for neglect of duty. The Court emphasized that an affidavit of desistance does not automatically result in the dismissal of an administrative case, as the Court has an independent interest in maintaining discipline among court personnel. The core of respondent’s liability lies in her failure to exercise the diligence required of her position. She released the money to a third party based merely on an alleged authorization letter, without any court order. At the time of the release, the civil case was still pending, and the fund remained under court custody; its release required a judicial directive. Her admission that she did not know the specific purpose of the deposit further indicates a lack of proper record-keeping and care. Her explanation for not complying with the judge’s refund orders—that she was on leave—was deemed unpersuasive, as she could have complied upon her return. The Court found her negligent in her duties. While the Office of the Court Administrator found no evidence of dishonesty or misappropriation, her actions constituted neglect of duty. Accordingly, she was fined P1,000.00 and sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.