AM P 00 1415 METC; (August, 2001) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-00-1415-MeTC; August 30, 2001
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. MRS. TERESITA Q. ORBIGO-MARCELO, Clerk of Court, MeTC, Taguig, Metro Manila, respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Clerk of Court, Teresita Q. Orbigo-Marcelo, went on an unauthorized absence from her post at the Metropolitan Trial Court of Taguig starting November 3, 1999, to travel to the United States. This prompted Judge Benjamin T. Pozon to order an inventory of court records and request a financial audit from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The respondent’s son claimed she had Judge Pozon’s permission for her leave, citing a farewell party and a supposedly accomplished leave form. He also questioned the integrity of the audit conducted in her absence.
The OCA’s subsequent financial audit revealed massive shortages in the court funds under respondent’s custody, totaling P3,827,552.70. The audit found irregularities across the Judiciary Development Fund, the Clerk of Court General Fund, and the Fiduciary Fund. Specifically, the examination uncovered understated remittances, failure to maintain proper cashbooks, missing monthly reports, and the use of incorrect official receipts. Respondent failed to deposit collections in full and did not properly account for withdrawals.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Clerk of Court is administratively liable for the substantial shortages in court funds discovered during the financial audit.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is guilty of dishonesty and gross misconduct warranting dismissal. The Court emphasized the fiduciary nature of a clerk of court’s duties as custodian of court funds and property. This role demands the highest standards of competence, honesty, and probity. The respondent is liable for any loss, shortage, or impairment of these funds.
The audit findings, which respondent did not substantively refute, constituted prima facie evidence of her accountability. In her response, while she appealed the specific amount, she admitted to “shortcomings” and unremitted collections but failed to present any contrary evidence or a credible explanation to disprove the OCA’s detailed computation. Her failure to properly account for the funds, maintain mandated records, and ensure the full and timely deposit of collections constituted gross neglect and dishonesty. Such acts erode public trust in the judiciary. Consequently, the Court imposed the supreme penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of all benefits, perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government agency, and a directive to restitute the full amount of the shortage, without prejudice to separate civil or criminal actions.