G.R. No. A.M. No. P-14-3248 (Formerly A.M. No. 14-6-66-MTC). January 10, 2023
Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, vs. Virgilio M. Fortaleza and Norberta R. Fortaleza, Respondents.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a financial audit conducted by the Court Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), on the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Catanauan, Quezon. The audit revealed numerous irregularities and misappropriation of judiciary funds totaling P779,643.15, attributable to respondents Virgilio M. Fortaleza (Clerk of Court II) and his spouse, Norberta R. Fortaleza (Court Interpreter I). During an exit conference, Norberta admitted to all discovered anomalies, though the audit evidence implicated Virgilio in schemes dating back to 1994. The specific findings per fund are:
1. Fiduciary Fund (P656,345.00):
* Tampering with Official Receipts and Non-remittance (P380,500.00): Norberta tampered with 59 official receipts by recording Fiduciary Fund collections on the originals but entering different amounts for other funds (Judiciary Development Fund or Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund) on the duplicate/triplicate copies. These amounts were not reported, recorded in the cashbook, or deposited.
* Failure to Remit Collections (P87,800.00): A portion of reported Fiduciary Fund collections from 1996-2012 was not deposited.
* Double Withdrawal of Cash Bonds: Unauthorized second withdrawals of cash bonds in criminal cases were facilitated using forged bondsmen signatures on acknowledgment receipts and court orders not signed by the judge but stamped “ORIGINAL SIGNED” and certified by Norberta.
* Unauthorized Withdrawals of Cash Bonds (P90,000.00): Similar scheme of forged signatures and unauthorized court orders.
* Unauthorized Withdrawal from Bank Account (P4,045.00): An unaccounted withdrawal from the Fiduciary Fund bank account.
2. Judiciary Development Fund (P35,496.40):
* Tampering of Official Receipts (P6,950.00): Norberta tampered with 17 receipts for marriage solemnization and bond fees, recording higher amounts on originals than on copies.
* Failure to Collect Mandatory Fees: Virgilio failed to collect required cash bond fees (resulting in lost revenue of P20,100.00 for Fiduciary Fund and P13,400.00 for JDF/SAJF), marriage solemnization fees (P5,742.00 for JDF), and clearance fees (P2,828.00 for JDF).
3. Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (P44,951.15):
* Tampering of Official Receipts (P30,600.00): Respondents tampered with four receipts for fines and bond fees.
Cash Shortage (P273.15).
4. Clerk of Court General Fund (P22,150.60):
Tampering of Official Receipt (P22,000.00): Virgilio tampered with one receipt for a court fine.
* Cash Shortage (P48.60).
5. Mediation Fund (P3,500.00): Virgilio failed to deposit collected amounts.
6. Sheriff’s Trust Fund (P17,200.00): While serving as Process Server, Virgilio collected but did not deposit this amount.
The Financial Audit Team recommended docketing the case, suspending Norberta pending resolution, directing Virgilio to restitute the total amount of P779,643.15, issuing a Hold Departure Order against both, and directing the presiding judge to monitor financial transactions. The Court adopted these recommendations in a Resolution dated August 6, 2014. Norberta subsequently submitted a letter dated September 24, 2014, which did not deny the charges but impliedly admitted them by requesting consideration for their family circumstances.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Virgilio M. Fortaleza and Norberta R. Fortaleza are administratively liable for the misappropriation and mishandling of judiciary funds, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

Yes, respondents are administratively liable. The Court found the audit report constituted prima facie evidence of the misappropriation. The acts committed—including tampering with official receipts, forgery, failure to collect and deposit court funds, and unauthorized withdrawals—constitute Serious Dishonesty and Gross Misconduct, which are serious charges under Section 14 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
The Court emphasized the fiduciary nature of a clerk of court’s duty over court funds. Misappropriation constitutes dishonesty and grave misconduct, which are punishable by dismissal even for the first offense. The respondents’ actions eroded public trust in the judiciary.
Virgilio M. Fortaleza was found guilty of Serious Dishonesty and Gross Misconduct. Considering the gravity of the offenses, the presence of aggravating factors (the amount involved, the period of commission, and his position of trust), and the need to preserve the judiciary’s integrity, the Court imposed the penalty of DISMISSAL from service. This dismissal carries with it the forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government branch or instrumentality. He was also ordered to RESTITUTE the total amount of P779,643.15.
Norberta R. Fortaleza was also found guilty of Serious Dishonesty and Gross Misconduct. As her active participation in tampering receipts and facilitating fraudulent withdrawals was clearly established, and considering she was a co-conspirator, the Court likewise imposed the penalty of DISMISSAL from service, with the same accessory penalties of forfeiture of benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification.