G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-11-2988; December 12, 2011 (Formerly A.M. No. 11-8-154-RTC)
Case Title: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR (OCA), Complainant, vs. ATTY. TEOTIMO D. CRUZ, Former Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, San Mateo, Rizal, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case stemmed from a financial audit conducted by the Court Management Office (CMO) on the books of account of Atty. Teotimo D. Cruz, the former Officer-in-Charge (OIC) of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court (RTC), San Mateo, Rizal, covering the period from August 21, 2007, to August 31, 2010. Atty. Cruz had compulsorily retired on April 15, 2011. The audit disclosed a total cash shortage of ₱928,534.24. Of this amount, ₱916,534.24 was a shortage carried over from the term of his predecessor, Atty. Fermin M. Ofilas, and was part of the financial accountability of a former Clerk IV per a prior Supreme Court decision. The remaining ₱12,000.00 shortage was incurred during Atty. Cruz’s term, resulting from a double withdrawal of a cash bond that had already been withdrawn and confiscated during his predecessor’s term. Furthermore, the audit revealed that Atty. Cruz incurred delays in remitting his court collections, violating Administrative Circular No. 5-93. This delay deprived the court of potential interest earnings amounting to ₱34,578.17.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Teotimo D. Cruz should be held administratively liable for the cash shortage incurred during his term and for the delay in the remittance of court collections.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Cruz is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The Court emphasized that Clerks of Court, as custodians of court funds, have a duty to immediately deposit all collections with authorized government depositories. Atty. Cruz’s failure to remit collections on time constituted a violation of Administrative Circular No. 3-2000 and was an inexcusable neglect of duty. Ordinarily, such delay warrants suspension. However, considering that Atty. Cruz had already retired from service and this was his first infraction, the Court imposed a fine of ₱5,000.00. Additionally, the Court ordered him to restitute the ₱12,000.00 cash shortage from his term and to pay ₱34,578.17 representing the lost interest due to the delayed deposits. The Financial Management Office was directed to deduct the total amount of ₱51,578.17 from his retirement benefits. The Court also issued directives for the proper deposit of the fine and the restituted amounts to specific funds and for the monitoring of the incumbent OIC.