A.M. No. P-04-1858 ; August 16, 2004
LAURENTE C. ILAGAN, complainant, vs. MINDA G. AMAR, Clerk of Court II, MCTC-Kapalong, Davao del Norte, respondent.

FACTS

Atty. Laurente C. Ilagan filed an administrative complaint against Clerk of Court II Minda G. Amar for Irregularity, Abuse of Authority, and possible Malversation of Funds. The complaint stemmed from Amar’s failure to release a P100,000.00 bail bond posted by accused Roda and Milagros Calimpong in several estafa cases. The cases were dismissed and became final in October 1999, entitling the accused to a refund. Despite repeated demands starting February 2000 and the execution of a Special Power of Attorney for withdrawal, Amar did not release the amount. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) repeatedly required Amar to comment on the complaint, but she consistently failed to do so.
Subsequent developments revealed the gravity of the situation. The presiding judge of the MCTC certified that Amar had “long been found to have misappropriated the said amount” and that no money remained in the court’s custody for release. Audit findings showed the P100,000.00 was deposited five days late, and the fiduciary fund’s bank balance never approached that amount when the refund was due, dropping as low as P13,923.31 in February 2000. Amar eventually claimed, through a letter from a law firm, that she had remitted the money over three years later. She also pleaded for indulgence, citing long service and poor health.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Minda G. Amar is administratively liable for her failure to promptly account for and release the fiduciary funds (bail bond) in her custody.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of Gross Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct warranting dismissal. The legal logic rests on the fiduciary nature of a clerk of court’s duties concerning court funds. As an accountable officer, Amar was bound by a high standard of care and integrity in handling cash bonds. Her failure to produce the money upon lawful demand, coupled with the audit evidence showing a shortage in the fund, gave rise to a presumption of misappropriation. The Court emphasized that clerks of court act as custodians of court funds and properties, and any shortage or failure to account constitutes a severe breach of trust.
Her defenses were unavailing. Her belated claim of remission after more than three years did not absolve her initial failure to account. Her plea for consideration based on long service and illness cannot mitigate the offense, as the Court must uphold strict public accountability to preserve the judiciary’s integrity. Although Amar had already been dropped from the rolls for being Absent Without Leave (AWOL), the Court retained jurisdiction over the administrative complaint filed prior to that separation. The penalty of dismissal, with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from government service, was imposed to serve as a deterrent. The OCA was also directed to explore filing criminal charges for malversation.