Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, vs. Remedios R. Viesca, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, Respondent.
FACTS
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), through its Audit Team, filed a memorandum charging respondent Remedios R. Viesca, Clerk of Court II, with Gross Neglect of Duty and Grave Misconduct. The charges stemmed from her failure to submit monthly financial reports and remit judiciary collections to the Revenue Section, Accounting Division, Financial Management Office (FMO), OCA, since 2000, despite constant notices and warnings. Her salaries were withheld effective May 28, 2004, due to non-compliance. An audit revealed computed shortages totaling ₱529,738.50 in judiciary collections (though restituted) and a failure to submit reports for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF), Fiduciary Fund, General Fund, and Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) for various periods. The Audit Team found that Viesca admitted to using collections because her salary was withheld, and her failure to remit promptly deprived the court of earned interest, recommending she pay ₱198,704.40 for unearned interest. In her defense, Viesca claimed she never misappropriated funds and blamed a co-clerk, Erlinda Hernandez, for misusing collections for cancer treatment, but audit records showed shortages persisted even after Hernandez’s death in 2006.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Remedios R. Viesca should be held administratively liable for Gross Neglect of Duty and Grave Misconduct.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent Remedios R. Viesca administratively liable for Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct, and Serious Dishonesty. As Clerk of Court, she was the custodian of court funds and revenues, with a duty to promptly deposit judiciary collections and submit monthly financial reports as mandated by OCA Circulars. Her failure to remit collections and submit reports for over a decade, despite warnings and salary withholding, constituted gross neglect of duty, characterized by a flagrant breach of duty and conscious indifference to consequences. Her admission to using collections for personal needs due to withheld salary, coupled with persistent non-compliance, amounted to grave misconduct, involving wrongful intention and disregard of established rules. The Court also found her liable for serious dishonesty, as her actions demonstrated a disposition to deceive and defraud, prejudicing the judiciary’s integrity. Restitution of shortages did not exonerate her. The penalty of dismissal from service was imposed, with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from government service.
