Report on the Financial Audit on the Books of Accounts of Mr. Delfin T. Polido, Former Clerk of Court of Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Victoria-La Paz, Tarlac
FACTS
This administrative case stemmed from a financial audit on the books of accounts of Delfin T. Polido, former Clerk of Court of the MCTC of Victoria-La Paz, Tarlac, who was due for compulsory retirement on December 19, 2002. The audit, conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), revealed discrepancies. For the Clerk of Court General Fund, there was an under-remittance of ₱5,134.40 from total collections of ₱76,236.01. For the Fiduciary Fund, a shortage of ₱38,000.00 was discovered. Polido was informed of these shortages but failed to submit a written explanation or settle his accountabilities promptly. It took nearly two years before he finally deposited the ₱38,000.00 for the Fiduciary Fund and paid the ₱5,134.40 directly to the OCA Cashier. He admitted to retaining cash collections intended for withdrawn bonds but could no longer provide detailed records or proof, citing the lapse of three years since his retirement.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Delfin T. Polido is administratively liable for the shortages and delays in remitting court funds, notwithstanding his subsequent restitution.
RULING
Yes, Polido is administratively liable for Simple Neglect of Duty. The Court affirmed the OCA’s findings but modified the recommended penalty. As Clerk of Court, Polido was the custodian of court funds bound by strict guidelines under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5-93. This circular mandates the immediate deposit of fiduciary collections and regular deposit of Judiciary Development Fund collections, with specific timelines, especially when collections reach ₱500. The legal logic is clear: clerks of court are not authorized to keep court funds in their personal custody. The discrepancies in the General Fund remittance and the substantial shortage in the Fiduciary Fund, which Polido could not satisfactorily explain, constituted a violation of these mandatory rules. His subsequent restitution, while mitigating, does not extinguish administrative liability. The failure to remit promptly deprives the judiciary of potential interest earnings and undermines fiduciary responsibility essential to the administration of justice. Considering his compulsory retirement, the Court could only impose a fine. While this was his first offense, the nature of the violation concerning public funds warranted a stiffer penalty than the OCA’s recommended ₱5,000.00. Thus, the Court found him guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty and imposed a fine of ₱10,000.00, deductible from his retirement benefits.
