AM 01 4 133 MTC; (August, 2003) (Digest)

A.M. No. 01-4-133-MTC; August 26, 2003
Re: Withholding of Other Emoluments of the following Clerks of Court: ELSIE C. REMOROZA, et al.

FACTS

This administrative matter originated from a memorandum by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) citing several clerks of court, including respondent Elsie C. Remoroza, Clerk of Court of the MTC of Mauban, Quezon, for neglect of duty. The specific charge was their repeated failure to submit the required monthly reports of collections for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF), Fiduciary Fund, and General Fund, as mandated by SC Circular No. 32-93. The Court initially ordered the withholding of their emoluments and later suspended them without pay pending full compliance.
Respondent Remoroza filed a motion for reconsideration, attributing her failure to submit reports on time to serious health problems. An audit of her accounts revealed significant procedural violations and delays. For the JDF, her last submitted monthly report was for November 1998, with collections for 2000-2001 remitted only in November 2001. For the General Fund, she submitted no monthly reports from May 1997 to August 2001, remitting the collections on a staggered basis in late 2001 and early 2002. For the Fiduciary Fund, she also failed to submit reports from August 1997 to August 2001, and a shortage was found and subsequently restituted.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Elsie C. Remoroza is administratively liable for her repeated failure to submit the required financial reports and remit collections on time, notwithstanding her claim of illness.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found her guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). The legal logic is clear: while illness may impair one’s ability to work, it does not completely exonerate an employee from administrative liability, especially for continuous violations over a long period. Clerks of court, as custodians of court funds and property, have a stringent duty to ensure the prompt and accurate remittance of collections and submission of reports. This duty is vital to the integrity of the judiciary’s financial administration.
Respondent’s health condition, even if proven, did not absolve her. She was aware of her responsibilities and her failing health; her proper course was to formally report her condition to her superiors and seek relief from duties she could no longer perform efficiently. By not doing so and allowing the violations to persist, she failed to uphold the high standard of diligence required of her office. The subsequent medical finding that she was physically fit to perform her functions further undermined her defense. Her actions constituted a breach of established rules constituting simple neglect of duty, defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee, signifying a disregard of duty due to carelessness or indifference.