A.M. No. P-03-1670. January 22, 2003. JOSEPH ANGELES, complainant, vs. REMEDIOS C. BASE, Clerk of Court II, MTC, Brooke’s Point, Palawan, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Joseph Angeles was the complaining witness in a criminal case where the accused posted a cash bond. The case was dismissed, and the accused, via a special power of attorney, authorized Angeles to receive the cash bond from respondent Clerk of Court Remedios C. Base. Angeles alleged that Base agreed to release P3,000.00 but, after he signed a receipt, only gave him P2,000.00, failing to deliver the P1,000.00 balance despite demands.
In her defense, Base claimed Angeles received the full amount on July 16, 1998, presenting his signature on the bank withdrawal slip as proof. The Office of the Court Administrator referred the case for investigation. The investigating judge found that Base’s evidence did not establish actual receipt of the full amount, noting the withdrawal slip only bore a signature without specifying the sum received. The judge concluded the cash bond was misappropriated.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Clerk of Court is administratively liable for her handling and release of the court’s cash bond.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty. The Court emphasized that a public office is a public trust, requiring court personnel to uphold the highest standards of integrity. Clerks of court, as custodians of court funds and property, bear strict accountability for any loss or shortage.
The Court found respondent remiss in her duties on three grounds. First, she withdrew the cash bond even before a formal court order for its release was issued, claiming good faith based on a verbal directive. This was untenable, as she could have requested the prompt preparation of the necessary written order. Second, she failed to initially require complainant to present the special power of attorney authorizing him to receive the bond, neglecting a basic procedural safeguard. Third, and most critically, she did not issue a proper acknowledgment receipt upon releasing the money. The mere signature on the withdrawal slip was insufficient to prove the exact amount handed over, making her accounting deficient.
These lapses, collectively, constituted simple neglect of duty—a less grave offense under Civil Service rules. While the investigating judge recommended a reprimand, the Court modified the penalty to a fine equivalent to one month’s salary, consistent with jurisprudence, to allow continuity in public service while holding her accountable. Respondent was also ordered to pay complainant the P1,000.00 balance.