AM P 09 2638; (December, 2010) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-09-2638, December 7, 2010
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Juliet C. Banag and Evelyn R. Galvez
FACTS
This administrative case stemmed from a financial audit of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Plaridel, Bulacan, covering the accountability periods of respondents Juliet C. Banag, the Clerk of Court, and Evelyn R. Galvez, a Court Interpreter and former Officer-in-Charge (OIC) Clerk of Court. The audit uncovered serious financial irregularities. For Banag, findings included the delayed deposit of various judiciary funds (Fiduciary, SAJF, Mediation, and Sheriff’s Trust Funds) totaling ₱38,628.00, with delays ranging from 24 days to nearly three months, and minor cash shortages. For Galvez, the audit revealed massive shortages amounting to ₱730,072.35 across multiple funds and the tampering of machine-validated deposit slips by altering dates and amounts.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Banag and Galvez are administratively liable for their handling and mismanagement of judiciary funds.
RULING
Yes, both respondents are administratively liable. The Court emphasized that Clerks of Court are custodians of court funds and revenues and have a duty to immediately deposit collections with authorized government depositories, as mandated by circulars. Their failure constitutes gross neglect of duty and dishonesty. For Banag, the unexplained delay in depositing collections, despite the funds being eventually deposited, is a violation of strict fiduciary rules. The Court held that delay itself is a violation, as it endangers public funds and erodes public trust. For Galvez, the infractions are more egregious. The massive shortages, coupled with the affirmative act of tampering with deposit slips to conceal discrepancies, constitute gross dishonesty and grave misconduct. The act of falsification demonstrates a deliberate intent to defraud, which is antithetical to the integrity required of court personnel. The Court found that their actions severely undermined the integrity of the judiciary’s financial operations. Consequently, the Court imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality. The Court also directed the filing of appropriate criminal charges against them.