G.R. No. A.M. No. P-06-2253, A.M. No. P-07-2360, A.M. No. P-13-3157. July 12, 2017.
THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR and JUDGE ELPIDIO R. CALIS, Complainants, vs. ELIZABETH R. TENGCO, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, Respondent.

FACTS

These are consolidated administrative cases against respondent Elizabeth R. Tengco, Clerk of Court II of the MTC of Sta. Cruz, Laguna. The first case originated from a memorandum by Presiding Judge Elpidio R. Calis directing Tengco to explain several irregularities, including failure to deposit fiduciary fund collections, delayed release of cash bonds, and an alleged gross over-assessment of filing fees in BP 22 cases. Specifically, a complainant alleged Tengco demanded ₱400,000 instead of the correct ₱75,525 in filing fees. Tengco subsequently absented herself from work and failed to comply with the memoranda and to submit required financial reports.
Acting on Judge Calis’s request, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted a financial audit covering Tengco’s accountability from April 2000 to February 2006. The audit revealed massive shortages totaling ₱2,159,470.90 in various court funds: Judiciary Development Fund (JDF), Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF), General Fund, Fiduciary Fund, and the Philippine Mediation Fund. The audit also found unremitted collections and undeposited fiduciary collections delayed for over a year. Despite directives from the Court, Tengco failed to restitute the amounts or offer a satisfactory explanation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Elizabeth R. Tengco is administratively liable for gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and grave misconduct arising from her failure to account for and remit court funds, and for her unexplained absence from duty.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of Gross Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Gross Neglect of Duty. The legal logic is anchored on the fiduciary nature of a Clerk of Court’s duty as custodian of court funds. The Court has consistently ruled that Clerks of Court are accountable officers bound by the highest standards of integrity and probity. Their duty to promptly deposit and accurately account for all court collections is a direct responsibility that admits no exception.
Respondent’s failure to remit the massive shortages, coupled with her unjustified absence and refusal to comply with lawful directives, constitutes a blatant disregard of her duties. Her actions demonstrated a pattern of deceit and malversation of public funds. The audit findings are prima facie evidence of her accountability, and her failure to rebut these findings or make restitution confirmed her culpability. The act of over-assessing filing fees further constitutes dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Such gross violations erode public trust in the judiciary and warrant the supreme penalty.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSED respondent Elizabeth R. Tengco from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch. She was ordered to restitute the total shortage of ₱2,159,470.90. The Legal Division of the OCA was directed to initiate appropriate criminal proceedings against her.