A.M. No. P-09-2597 (Formerly A.M. No. 08-12-356-MCTC) September 11, 2012
Administrator, Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, vs. Leonila R. Acedo, Former Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Trial Court, Abuyog-Javier, Leyte, Respondent.

FACTS

These consolidated administrative matters originated from the respondent’s repeated failure to submit required monthly financial reports, leading to an audit of her accounts. Respondent Leonila R. Acedo, former Clerk of Court II, was among several clerks named in a 2001 Court Resolution for continually failing to submit monthly reports. In 2002, the Court directed the withholding of salaries for non-compliant clerks, including Acedo. She compulsorily retired in January 2003 without seeking clearance or voluntarily submitting her books of account.
A financial audit covering her tenure from May 1985 to January 2003 revealed significant cash shortages and irregularities. The audit found a total shortage of P813,097.55 across various judiciary funds, including the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF), Clerk of Court General Fund (GF), and Fiduciary Fund (FF). Specifically, she failed to remit JDF and GF collections and, most egregiously, violated circulars by not depositing Fiduciary Fund cash bonds into an authorized bank account, commingling them with other collections instead. In a 2008 letter, Acedo admitted her failures and violations, citing fear and health problems.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Leonila R. Acedo is administratively liable for her failure to submit monthly reports and for the cash shortages and irregularities discovered in her financial accounts.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Court found her guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty and Gross Dishonesty. The legal logic is grounded in the fiduciary nature of a clerk of court’s position, especially concerning financial accountability. Clerks of court are designated as custodians of court funds and properties; they serve as quasi-accountants bound to adhere strictly to circulars governing the handling of judiciary funds. The respondent’s prolonged failure to submit monthly reports was a direct violation of SC Circular No. 32-93, which is a prima facie evidence of negligence. More seriously, the audit-established shortages, particularly the failure to deposit fiduciary collections in the proper interest-bearing account as mandated by OCA Circular No. 50-95, constitute gross dishonesty. This act of misappropriation, evidenced by the unremitted collections and undocumented withdrawals, betrayed public trust. Her subsequent admissions, while indicative of remorse, do not exonerate her from liability. The Court emphasized that the responsibilities of a clerk of court are circumscribed by stringent rules, and deviation therefrom, resulting in loss of public funds, warrants severe penalty. Considering her retirement, the Court imposed a fine of P40,000.00, deductible from her retirement benefits, commensurate with the gravity of the offenses which would have merited dismissal had she still been in service.