A.M. No. P-07-2415; October 19, 2009
Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, vs. Alfredo Manasan, Clerk of Court II, MCTC, Orani-Samal, Bataan, Respondent.

FACTS

The Office of the Court Administrator conducted a financial audit on the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Orani-Samal, Bataan, covering July 1, 1999, to September 24, 2007. The audit focused on respondent Alfredo P. Manasan, Clerk of Court II, who handled the court’s financial transactions from June 1, 2001, onward. The audit team discovered an unremitted total collection of ₱83,110.00, covering various court funds (Judiciary Development Fund, Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund, Fiduciary Fund, Mediation Fund, and Legal Research Fund) for periods primarily in 2007.
Upon demand, respondent failed to produce the cash on hand. He explained he kept the collections at his home for safekeeping, citing trauma from a prior 2005 incident where he allegedly lost ₱60,000 in cash bond to a pickpocket. Directed to immediately deposit the funds and submit an explanation, respondent delayed restitution for a week, depositing the amount only after the audit team had left. The audit also noted that while his collections and remittances were generally proper from 2001 until March 2007, cash shortages began accumulating from April 2007.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Alfredo P. Manasan is administratively liable for his handling of court funds and his delayed compliance with the Court’s directives.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found him guilty of simple neglect of duty for his failure to immediately deposit court collections. A clerk of court, as a fiduciary officer, is duty-bound to deposit various court funds without delay and is not authorized to keep them in personal custody. Respondent’s practice of safekeeping collections at home and his delayed restitution constituted a breach of this duty. Under Section 52(B)(1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect of duty is penalized with suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense.
Additionally, the Court imposed a fine of ₱5,000 for respondent’s delayed and inadequate compliance with its December 12, 2007, Resolution. Orders of the Court must be obeyed promptly and fully; partial or selective compliance demonstrates disrespect. As a court employee, respondent was required to exercise a high degree of professionalism and obedience to the Court’s processes without the least delay. Considering it was his first offense for simple neglect of duty, the Court suspended him for one month and one day without pay and issued a warning against repetition.