A.M. No. P-05-1975; July 26, 2007
Maricis A. Alenio, et al., Complainants, vs. Eladia T. Cunting, Clerk of Court IV, and Marie Gay B. Naranjo, Clerk III, Respondents.

FACTS

Multiple complainants, who were accused in various criminal cases, filed sworn complaints against respondents Eladia T. Cunting, Clerk of Court IV, and Marie Gay B. Naranjo, Clerk III, of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities-Office of the Clerk of Court in Zamboanga City. The charges included gross misconduct, dishonesty, and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Each complainant had personally deposited cash bail bonds with respondent Naranjo, who issued corresponding official receipts. Upon the termination or dismissal of their cases, they sought the return of their bonds but were informed by the Officer-in-Charge that the funds could not be returned as the cash bonds had not been deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines by the accountable officer.
In their respective comments, both respondents denied misappropriating the funds. Respondent Naranjo asserted she turned over all received cash bonds and receipts to respondent Cunting, following office practice. Respondent Cunting denied the allegations, claiming a lack of factual basis and explaining she was unaware of the claims due to being temporarily relieved from office during a Supreme Court audit. She argued she was not accorded due process.

ISSUE

Whether respondents are administratively liable for the alleged misappropriation of the cash bail bonds.

RULING

The Court found respondent Eladia T. Cunting GUILTY of gross dishonesty and grave misconduct and DISMISSED her from the service. The complaint against Marie Gay B. Naranjo was dismissed for lack of merit. The legal logic centered on the fiduciary duty of a Clerk of Court as an accountable officer. Clerk of Court Cunting, as the custodian of court funds, had the non-delegable duty to immediately deposit all fiduciary collections, such as bail bonds, with an authorized government depository. Her failure to do so, evidenced by the undisputed non-deposit of the complainants’ cash bonds, constituted gross dishonesty. Her defense of being relieved from duty and lack of knowledge was unavailing; the duty to ensure proper deposit was hers from the moment the funds were received by her office. The omission, resulting in the inability to return the bonds, also constituted grave misconduct, defined as a transgression of established rules linked to official duties. The penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from reemployment was imposed as these are grave offenses. For Clerk III Naranjo, the Court found her mere receipt and turnover of the funds to Cunting, in accordance with regular procedure, insufficient to establish personal administrative liability without evidence of her personal participation in the misappropriation.