A.M. No. P-12-3084, August 22, 2012
Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, vs. Ms. Vivencia K. Languido, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Pres. Roxas-Antipas-Arakan, North Cotabato, Respondent.

FACTS

The Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator (FMO-OCA) reported that several clerks of court failed to submit their Monthly Financial Reports. Consequently, an audit was conducted on the book of accounts of respondent Vivencia K. Languido, Clerk of Court of the MCTC, covering April 19, 1985 to September 30, 2009. The audit report revealed that Languido incurred delays in remitting her collections and had a total cash shortage of P491,910.70. After partial restitution of P87,969.10, a balance of P403,941.60 remained. The audit further uncovered several irregularities: she presented only one passbook, claiming loss of the earlier one; failed to issue a receipt and remit confiscated bet money; and had been collecting and disbursing the Sheriffs Trust Fund since 2004 without issuing official receipts, maintaining a cash book, or submitting monthly reports.
For these infractions, the OCA withheld her salaries and benefits, and the presiding judge relieved her as financial custodian. The OCA, adopting the audit team’s recommendations, sought to docket an administrative complaint, apply her withheld salaries to the shortage, direct her to submit documents and explain, and impose preventive suspension and a fine.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Vivencia K. Languido is administratively liable for her failure to properly remit court collections, account for various judiciary funds, and submit required financial reports.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court emphasized that a clerk of court is a fiduciary of court funds and is bound to perform duties with utmost diligence, care, and honesty. The failure to remit court collections on time and to properly account for them constitutes gross neglect of duty and gross dishonesty. The Court rejected Languido’s explanations—such as not knowing the proper account for confiscated bet money and lacking instructions for the trust fund—as unacceptable and indicative of a disregard for established circulars and procedures. Her actions deprived the judiciary of interest income and undermined public trust in the administration of justice.
Considering the substantial shortages, the loss of a passbook, and the failure to issue official receipts, the Court found the recommended penalty of a six-month suspension and a P30,000 fine to be appropriate. It modified the OCA’s recommendation, imposing this penalty instead of preventive suspension and a smaller fine, to reflect the gravity of the infractions. The Court also directed the Finance Division to apply her withheld salaries to the remaining cash shortage and ordered the court’s Officer-in-Charge and Presiding Judge to ensure strict future compliance with financial rules, warning the judge of equal liability for any recurrence.