G.R. No. A.M. No. 95-4-143-RTC March 13, 1998
RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AND FINANCIAL AUDIT OF RTC- BR. 4, PANABO, DAVAO DEL NORTE

FACTS

A judicial and financial audit was conducted from February 13 to 17, 1995, on RTC-Branch 4, Panabo, Davao del Norte, prompted by a letter from then Acting Presiding Judge Bernardo V. Saludares regarding the disorganized state of the court’s records and financial accounts during the incumbency of Judge Mariano C. Tupas, who optionally retired on August 1, 1994.
The judicial audit revealed: (1) Five civil/special cases remained undecided beyond the 90-day reglementary period; (2) Three criminal cases were likewise undecided beyond 90 days; (3) Seven cases submitted after Judge Tupas’s retirement; (4) Minutes of Proceedings were absent in unappealed cases; (5) At least fifty decided cases were not properly logged in the Docket Book; and (6) Case records were disorganized, with pleadings not chronologically stitched or attached.
The financial audit for August 1989 to January 31, 1995, revealed: (1) A shortage of P12,461.75 in the Fiduciary Fund, with Clerk of Court Atty. Victor R. Ginete six months behind in reports and no Cash Book kept; (2) A shortage of P18,377.25 in the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF), with improper remittances; (3) A shortage of P6,849.65 in the Clerk of Court General Fund; (4) A shortage of P36.00 in the Ex-Officio Sheriff General Fund; (5) Collections were deposited in a Rural Bank instead of the Land Bank of the Philippines as required; (6) Postdated Supreme Court salary checks were encashed from Fiduciary Fund collections; and (7) Unauthorized borrowings from court collections by personnel, including Judge Tupas (P500.00) and Atty. Ginete (multiple withdrawals for himself and others).
The Court required explanations from Judge Tupas, Atty. Ginete, and Interpreter Delsa M. Flores. Judge Tupas denied mismanagement and borrowing money, submitting a bank withdrawal slip signed by Atty. Ginete and another employee. Atty. Ginete explained the shortages were due to documents being attached to case records, his assumption without a formal turnover from a dismissed predecessor, and his encashment of an employee’s check for humanitarian reasons. He also claimed some funds were deposited in a bank awaiting remittance.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Mariano C. Tupas and Atty. Victor R. Ginete are administratively liable for the failures in judicial administration and financial management as revealed by the audit.

RULING

Yes. The Court found both Judge Tupas and Atty. Ginete administratively liable.
Regarding Judge Tupas, the Court found his explanations unsatisfactory. He failed to decide/resolve cases within the reglementary period, constituting gross inefficiency. His claim of efficient court management was belied by the audit findings of missing minutes, disorganized records, and unarchived cases. While the evidence did not conclusively prove he personally borrowed the P500.00, the Court found he failed in his duty to supervise court personnel and ensure proper financial management, contributing to the irregularities. For these infractions, he was fined P40,000.00, deductible from his retirement benefits.
Regarding Atty. Ginete, the Court found him grossly negligent and dishonest in the performance of his fiduciary duties as Clerk of Court. He incurred shortages in various court funds (Fiduciary, JDF, General, Sheriff), failed to submit timely reports, deposited funds in an unauthorized bank, commingled collections, and made unauthorized withdrawals and loans from court funds. His explanations were deemed flimsy and indicative of a lack of integrity. The Court emphasized the high degree of responsibility required of a Clerk of Court in handling court funds. For gross dishonesty and grave misconduct, Atty. Victor R. Ginete was DISMISSED from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality.
The Court also directed the Financial Management Office to compute the exact shortages and ordered Atty. Ginete to restitute the amounts. Interpreter Delsa M. Flores was admonished for her failure to prepare minutes and warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.