A.M. No. 818-TEL. April 18, 1979. RE: REPORT ON THE SHORTAGE OF THE ACCOUNTABILITIES OF CLERK OF COURT CARLITO U. ALVIZO, respondent.
FACTS:

This administrative case originated from a letter dated October 18, 1978, from the Acting Chairman of the Commission on Audit, informing the Supreme Court that an audit of the accounts of respondent Carlito U. Alvizo, Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance in Lianga, Surigao del Sur, revealed a shortage of P31,612.50. The Court immediately suspended Alvizo and directed Executive Judge Otilio G. Abaya to investigate. The audit, conducted by Provincial Auditor Miguel Piñalosa and his staff on August 22, 1978, confirmed the shortage, which comprised collections for the Clerk of Court, fiduciary fund, legal research fund, provincial sheriff’s fund, and a cash advance. Despite demands for restitution, Alvizo failed to remit the amount promptly.
Respondent initially requested a re-examination, which was granted and ultimately confirmed the original shortage figure. He subsequently made full restitution of P31,612.50 via bank deposits on November 16 and 17, 1978. In his manifestation, Alvizo admitted the audit findings and the shortage but cited his official leave of absence as a reason for the delayed payment. The investigating judge, after reviewing the evidence, which included the audit reports, demand letters, Alvizo’s telegram promising remittance, and the official receipts of payment, found the shortage conclusively established.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Clerk of Court Carlito U. Alvizo should be held administratively liable for the shortage in his accountabilities.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of dishonesty and neglect of duty and ordered his dismissal. The legal logic is straightforward and rests on the fiduciary nature of a clerk of court’s position. Clerks of court are custodians of court funds and properties, and their duty to safeguard and accurately account for these items is paramount. The audit, which Alvizo did not successfully contest, provided prima facie evidence of the shortage. His subsequent restitution, while mitigating the financial loss, does not extinguish the administrative liability. The act of failing to have the funds intact upon demand constitutes dishonesty, as it implies misappropriation or unauthorized use. Furthermore, the failure to promptly account for and remit the collections demonstrates gross neglect of duty in the performance of his official functions. The Court applied Rule XVIII, Section 19 (c & g) of the Civil Service Rules and Section 1 (a & d) of Presidential Decree No. 6, which prescribe penalties for dishonesty and neglect. Dismissal was deemed the appropriate penalty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary and to serve as a deterrent, as the position demands the highest standards of integrity and probity. The Court also ordered forfeiture of retirement benefits and left him open to criminal prosecution.