A.M. No. P-12-3092. October 10, 2017. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, vs. REMEDIOS R. VIESCA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF SAN ANTONIO, NUEVA ECIJA, Respondent.
FACTS

This case involves a Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Remedios R. Viesca, Clerk of Court II, seeking leniency from the Court’s Decision dated April 14, 2015. In that Decision, the Court found Viesca guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct, and Serious Dishonesty. The charges stemmed from her failure to immediately deposit judiciary collections and submit the required monthly financial reports, as mandated by pertinent OCA Circulars. The Court initially imposed the penalty of dismissal from service, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave), perpetual disqualification from re-employment, cancellation of civil service eligibility, and disqualification from future civil service examinations.
In her motion, Viesca pleaded for compassion and a mitigation of the penalty. She cited her full restitution of the total shortage, her 34 years of unblemished government service solely within the Judiciary, the absence of irregularities in the receipts she eventually submitted, and the fact that this was her first administrative offense. She also highlighted her advanced age of 68 and implored the Court to allow her to enjoy the fruits of her long service.

ISSUE

Whether the mitigating circumstances cited by respondent Viesca warrant a reduction of the penalties initially imposed for her administrative infractions.

RULING

Yes, the Court partially granted the motion for reconsideration and modified the penalty. The Court maintained that Viesca’s administrative liability was settled. Clerks of court, as fiduciaries of court funds, have a non-negotiable duty to promptly deposit collections and submit reports. Shortages, delays, and misappropriation constitute Gross Neglect, Grave Misconduct, and Serious Dishonesty, offenses typically punishable by dismissal with all its accessory penalties. Restitution does not exculpate liability.
However, the Court exercised its discretion to temper justice with mercy due to the confluence of several mitigating circumstances. Jurisprudence shows that penalties may be reduced based on factors like length of service, acknowledgment of infractions, restitution, first offense, advanced age, and humanitarian considerations. The Court noted that Viesca fully restituted the shortages, with earned interests deducted from her withheld salaries, leaving no accountabilities. She fully cooperated with the audit and submitted untainted financial records, demonstrating responsibility. Furthermore, the Court considered her 34 years of service, advanced age, and the fact that this was her first offense.
Applying analogous cases where penalties were reduced from dismissal to fines or suspension for similar infractions in light of mitigating factors, the Court found a reduction warranted. Consequently, the penalty was modified. Instead of dismissal, respondent Viesca was ordered to pay a fine of Fifty Thousand Pesos (₱50,000.00), deductible from her retirement benefits. The motion for reconsideration was thus partially granted.