AM MTJ 06 1630; (March, 2006) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-06-1630. March 31, 2006
Estrella A. Barba, Complainant, vs. Judge Rosita B. Salazar and Clerk of Court II Joseph L. Brillantes, both of the MCTC, Licuan-Baay, Abra, Respondents.
FACTS
Complainant Estrella Barba, mother of a resigned court clerk, alleged that after her daughter’s resignation, several checks in the daughter’s name were still issued. While some checks were returned, three checks—for midyear bonus, clothing allowance, and fiscal autonomy allowance—remained unremitted. Complainant discovered that respondent Judge Rosita B. Salazar had taken possession of these checks from the post office. The judge claimed she intended to return them personally but later reported them lost. An investigation by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) later revealed that two of the three “missing” checks had been encashed, one at a store where the judge’s signature appeared on its back. Respondent Clerk of Court Joseph Brillantes was also implicated for allegedly allowing the judge to take the checks.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Judge Salazar and Clerk of Court Brillantes are administratively liable for the encashment of the checks intended for a resigned employee.
RULING
The Supreme Court found Judge Salazar administratively liable but dismissed the complaint against Clerk of Court Brillantes. For Judge Salazar, the Court applied the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The established facts—that she took the checks, they were encashed, and her signature was on one of the negotiated checks—spoke for themselves, creating a presumption of negligence. Her defense of loss was deemed unbelievable and insufficient to overcome this presumption. Her failure to exercise the high degree of care required in handling court funds constituted gross negligence, warranting a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) and an order to restitute the amount.
Regarding Clerk of Court Brillantes, the Court agreed with the investigating judge that there was no substantial evidence of complicity. His act of allowing the presiding judge, his superior, to take custody of the checks with her assurance to return them, while perhaps an error in judgment, did not amount to gross negligence or dishonesty warranting administrative sanction. The complaint against him was dismissed. The OCA was directed to institute appropriate criminal charges against the judge’s son and others responsible for the encashment.