AM P 03 1755; (April, 2005) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-03-1755. April 29, 2005.
JUDGE MANUEL S. SOLLESTA, Complainant, vs. SALVACION B. MISSION, Respondent.
FACTS
Judge Manuel S. Sollesta of the MCTC of Banga/Tantangan, South Cotabato, charged Clerk of Court II Salvacion B. Mission with embezzlement and misappropriation of judiciary funds. The charge stemmed from a 1999 Commission on Audit (COA) examination which revealed a cash shortage of P171,450.00 under Mission’s accountability. The shortage comprised undeposited collections of P93,450.00 and unliquidated cash advances of P78,000.00 from the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and Trust Fund. Upon demand by state auditors, Mission could only produce P760.00 in cash. The audit also found that Mission made withdrawals from court bank deposits without the required supporting court orders, official receipts, and acknowledgment receipts, in violation of Supreme Court circulars.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Salvacion B. Mission is administratively liable for the cash shortage and the unauthorized withdrawals of court funds under her custody.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of gross dishonesty and grave misconduct and ordered her dismissal. The legal logic is anchored on the fiduciary nature of a clerk of court’s duty as a custodian of court funds. The failure of an accountable officer to produce public funds upon demand constitutes prima facie evidence that the missing funds were put to personal use. Mission’s failure to account for the substantial shortage, coupled with her admissions and the COA’s detailed findings, established her misappropriation. The Court emphasized that clerks of court must adhere to the highest standards of honesty and integrity, as their positions involve grave responsibility over fiduciary assets. The unauthorized withdrawals, executed without the mandated court orders, further demonstrated a blatant disregard for established rules designed to safeguard court funds. Such acts erode public trust in the judiciary. Consequently, the penalty of dismissal, with forfeiture of benefits and prejudice to reemployment, was imposed as the appropriate sanction for misappropriation of judicial funds, which is considered a grave offense. The Court also directed the filing of a possible criminal complaint and ordered an investigation into the presiding judge who signed the withdrawal slips without the required court orders.