AM 02 10 598 RTC; (February, 2003) (Digest)
A.M. No. 02-10-598-RTC; February 11, 2003
IN RE: DELAYED REMITTANCE OF COLLECTIONS OF TERESITA LYDIA R. ODTUHAN, Officer-in-Charge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 117, Pasay City.
FACTS
This administrative case stemmed from Teresita Lydia R. Odtuhan’s failure to timely remit fiduciary collections. As the Officer-in-Charge, Odtuhan took custody of ₱12,705.00 in auction sale proceeds from a special proceedings case on January 1, 1999. She failed to deposit this amount with the Land Bank of the Philippines within 24 hours as required by Circular No. 50-95. A Memorandum dated July 19, 2001, from the Branch Clerk of Court required her to explain the delay. Odtuhan replied that she had kept the funds inadvertently, awaiting other receivables, and had no intention to misappropriate them.
Despite this explanation and subsequent demands, Odtuhan did not remit the funds. It was only after receiving another letter dated April 17, 2002, from the Clerk of Court that she finally remitted the full amount in 2002—over three years after initially receiving the collections. In her defense to a later directive from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), she cited her diagnosis and treatment for ovarian cancer beginning April 2002 and a difficult relationship with her presiding judge.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Teresita Lydia R. Odtuhan is administratively liable for the delayed remittance of fiduciary collections.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found Odtuhan guilty of serious misconduct. The Court emphasized that all judiciary personnel must act with utmost propriety to maintain public trust. Circular No. 50-95 mandatorily requires fiduciary collections to be deposited within 24 hours. The Court’s jurisprudence consistently holds that unjustifiable delay in such remittance constitutes grave misfeasance or serious misconduct, as it undermines accountability for public funds.
The Court rejected Odtuhan’s excuses as unsatisfactory and inconsistent. Her initial claim of inadvertently holding the funds was contradicted by her subsequent inaction despite formal demands. While the Court acknowledged her health condition, it ruled that her illness, which began treatment in April 2002, did not excuse the delay that started in 1999 and persisted through multiple directives. Her actions demonstrated a serious breach of duty.
However, considering her subsequent remittance, her affliction with ovarian cancer, and for humanitarian reasons, the Court modified the OCA’s recommended penalty of one-month suspension. Instead, the Court imposed a fine of ₱10,000.00 with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.