G.R. No. A.M. No. 2864-P May 16, 1985
Office of the Court Administrator, petitioner, vs. Amando S. Soriano and Mila R. Tijam, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Amando Soriano was the deputy clerk of court and accountable officer for court fee collections at the defunct Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Iriga City. He designated respondent Mila Tijam, a clerk, as the collection clerk. An audit for the period January 1976 to December 1982 revealed a shortage of P56,850.71 in the court’s collections. Both respondents did not contest the audit finding. Tijam assured she would restore the amount, while Soriano averred the shortage was solely Tijam’s responsibility as the designated collection clerk.
The investigating Executive Judge found that Soriano himself had made full restitution of the entire shortage amount through several remittances in February 1983. Based on this restitution, the Judge recommended that both respondents be absolved from any liability.

ISSUE

Whether the full restitution of the shortage exempts the accountable officer and the collection clerk from administrative and criminal liability.

RULING

No, restitution does not extinguish liability. The Supreme Court rejected the recommendation for absolution. As the Officer-in-Charge and accountable officer, Soriano bore ultimate responsibility for all court collections. His duty included exercising the strictest supervision over his designated collection clerk. By failing to do so, resulting in a shortage, he could be liable for malversation through negligence. He cannot evade responsibility by blaming his subordinate.
Tijam, as the collection clerk, is directly liable for her failure to account for the funds. Her active role in promising and facilitating restitution is indicative of her direct involvement in the shortage. The Court, citing Acting Court Administrator Buena, emphasized that the three-month gap between the discovery of the shortage and its restitution created a presumption of misappropriation. Restitution is merely a mitigating circumstance.
The Court, invoking People vs. Miranda, ruled that payment or reimbursement after the commission of a crime like malversation affects only civil liability; it does not extinguish criminal or administrative liability. The offense is a public crime prosecuted by the state. Consequently, both respondents remained administratively and criminally liable. The Court ordered their dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits and prejudice to re-employment. The case was referred to the Tanodbayan for criminal prosecution.