G.R. No. A.M. P-05-1958; February 07, 2005
Office of the Court Administrator, complainant, vs. Clerk IV Tessie Duque, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Santiago City, Isabela, respondent.

FACTS

In a criminal case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22, the accused, Marirose Valencia, delivered the amount of P120,000.00 to respondent Tessie Duque, a Clerk IV detailed at MTCC-Branch 1, for safekeeping pending the resolution of her motion for reconsideration. The case was pending in MTCC-Branch 2. When a writ of execution was later issued by the presiding judge of Branch 2, the implementing sheriff discovered that the money was in Duque’s custody, as evidenced by a receipt. The money was eventually garnished from Duque and delivered to the private complainant.
An investigation was conducted following a request from a court process server. Respondent Duque admitted receiving and holding the money for about 17 months, claiming she did so to render service to the litigants and that she had informed the judge who brokered the settlement. The investigating judge found no concrete evidence that the judge involved received the money but recommended disciplinary action against Duque.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Tessie Duque is administratively liable for her actions in receiving and keeping the money.

RULING

Yes, respondent Duque is liable for Simple Misconduct. The Court ruled that as a Clerk IV, she was not authorized to receive money incidental to court proceedings, especially since she was detailed in a branch different from where the case was pending. Her function of receiving and safeguarding court collections is exclusively vested in the Branch Clerk of Court. By accepting the money, she arrogated unto herself an unauthorized function.
The legal logic establishes that while the money was eventually accounted for and no dishonesty or bad faith was proven, her act constituted unlawful conduct prejudicial to the orderly administration of justice. Misconduct is defined as wrongful, improper, unlawful conduct by a person in the administration of justice. Her failure to immediately turn over the funds to the proper custodian upon receipt, and instead retaining them for 17 months until compelled by a garnishment order, demonstrated a lack of due care and circumspection required of court personnel. Consequently, she was found guilty of Simple Misconduct and suspended without pay for two months. The involved judge was merely advised to be more prudent to avoid any appearance of impropriety.