AM P 00 1384; (February, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-00-1384. February 27, 2002
JUDGE PASCUAL F. FOJAS, JR., Municipal Trial Court, Indang Cavite, complainant, vs. GALICANO M. ROLLAN, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Tagaytay City, respondent.
FACTS
An audit of respondent Galicano M. Rollan, Clerk of Court of the MCTC, Indang Cavite, who was transferring to another court, revealed that the original copy of Official Receipt No. 2130901 was missing from the accountable forms he turned over. The incoming clerk, Wilma de Fiesta, discovered the missing original and reported it. Initially, respondent executed an affidavit of loss, denying he issued the receipt. However, a clerk, Dennis M. Constante, observed indentations on the duplicate and triplicate copies suggesting respondent had signed it for a ₱2,000 fine related to a jueteng case.
While a technical examination by the NBI was pending, respondent executed a second affidavit, now admitting he issued the missing receipt in 1996 to an unknown person for a ₱2,000 fine collection. He later recanted this admission in his answer to the administrative complaint, claiming he only signed the second affidavit upon suggestion to “buy peace” and again denied issuing the receipt.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Galicano M. Rollan is administratively liable for the missing official receipt.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of dishonesty and is dismissed from service. The Supreme Court emphasized that clerks of court are accountable officers bound by the highest standards of integrity. Respondent’s contradictory affidavits—first denying, then admitting, and finally recanting his issuance of the receipt—demonstrate a clear lack of candor and constitute dishonesty. The Court found his shifting statements to be unreliable and calculated to evade responsibility.
The legal logic is that dishonesty, as a grave offense under Civil Service rules, warrants dismissal even for a first offense. The Court rejected the Office of the Court Administrator’s lesser recommended penalty of a fine, noting that the position of a clerk of court carries a high degree of trust. By his actions, respondent irreparably breached this trust. Whether the original receipt was misused or lost through negligence is immaterial; his dishonest conduct in handling the matter itself merits the supreme penalty. Consequently, he was dismissed with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except leave credits) and disqualification from reemployment in any government agency.