G.R. No. A.M. No. P-10-2765. September 13, 2011.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, vs. EVELYN G. ELUMBARING, Clerk of Court II, 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Carmen-Sto. Tomas-Braulio E. Dujali, Davao del Norte, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a financial audit conducted on November 18, 2008, covering the accountability period of Clerk of Court Evelyn G. Elumbaring from May 1985 to October 31, 2008. The audit was prompted by her failure to submit financial reports since March 2006. The audit revealed: (1) An initial cash shortage of ₱90,719.00; (2) A shortage in the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF) of ₱153,356.47 due to accumulated non-remittance; (3) A shortage in the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) of ₱90,578.23 due to accumulated non-remittance; (4) A shortage in the Fiduciary Fund of ₱85,540.45; (5) Delays in remittances spanning several months to years for various funds; (6) The practice of “lapping” (covering cash shortages by deferring deposits); and (7) That Elumbaring held withdrawn cash bonds for over 20 days without refunding them or redepositing them, indicating temporary appropriation for personal use. Elumbaring subsequently deposited the shortages for JDF, SAJF, and most of the Fiduciary Fund in November 2008 and April 2009, fully restituting the amounts. In her defense, she admitted failure to remit on time but cited the distance to the bank, her lack of computer skills, and claimed she was unaware her role included being a financial accountable officer.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Evelyn G. Elumbaring is administratively liable for her handling of court funds.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of Gross Dishonesty and is DISMISSED from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality. The Court found that as Clerk of Court, she was a custodian of court funds and properties, and her failure to remit collections promptly and fully constituted gross dishonesty. Her actions of lapping collections, delaying deposits for prolonged periods, and temporarily appropriating withdrawn cash bonds demonstrated dishonesty and gross misconduct. Her defenses—distance to the bank, lack of computer skills, and ignorance of her duties as an accountable officer—were unacceptable and constituted negligence and evasion of responsibility. The subsequent restitution of the shortages does not exonerate her from administrative liability. The misappropriation of public funds by a court employee erodes public trust in the judiciary and warrants the supreme penalty of dismissal.