AM 94 989; (April, 1997) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-94-989. April 18, 1997. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. JUDGE AUGUSTO SUMILANG, INTERPRETER FELICIDAD MALLA, STENO-REPORTER EDELITA LAGMAY and STENO-REPORTER NIEVA MERCADO, respondents.
FACTS
This administrative case arose from an audit of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pila, Laguna. The audit discovered that court interpreter Felicidad Malla, while acting as officer-in-charge, personally received a manager’s check for P240,000.00 from a litigant in Civil Case No. 858, instead of ensuring its deposit with the municipal treasurer as required by Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92. Malla admitted she deposited the amount but later withdrew it with Judge Augusto Sumilang. She subsequently lent portions of the money to court stenographers Edelita Lagmay and Nieva Mercado, gave a portion to the judge’s wife, and used the remainder for personal expenses, including her husband’s hospitalization.
A separate complaint charged Malla with removing judicial records from the court premises. In their defenses, Lagmay and Mercado claimed their loans were from Malla’s personal funds and were repaid, while Judge Sumilang denied any knowledge of his staff’s irregularities and his wife’s involvement.
ISSUE
Whether the respondents are administratively liable for their actions concerning the court’s fiduciary funds and records.
RULING
Yes, the respondents are administratively liable. The Court found Judge Sumilang guilty of gross negligence and incompetence in the supervision of his court personnel. As the presiding judge and administrator of the court, he bears responsibility for the conduct and management of its business. His professed ignorance of the misappropriation occurring within his court constitutes a serious breach of judicial ethics and a failure of the control demanded of his office. His claim of acting hastily upon discovery was unconvincing and did not absolve him of his supervisory lapses.
The evidence conclusively established Malla’s misappropriation of fiduciary funds entrusted to the court. Her defense that the litigant allowed her to use the money was unsupported and self-serving. Her claim that her affidavit of admission was inadmissible, having been obtained in violation of her constitutional rights during custodial investigation, failed because the investigation by the Office of the Court Administrator was an administrative, not a criminal, inquiry. For gross dishonesty, she was dismissed from service with forfeiture of benefits. Lagmay and Mercado were found guilty of conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for their participation in the irregular financial transactions with Malla, receiving suspensions. The Court emphasized the high standard of integrity and propriety required of all judiciary personnel.