A.M. No. SCC-05-10-P; October 19, 2007
Andy M. Bulalat, Complainant, vs. Kyd Abdulwahid I. Adil, Clerk of Court, Shari’a Circuit Court, Kabacan, North Cotabato, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Andy M. Bulalat charged respondent Kyd Abdulwahid I. Adil, Clerk of Court of the Shari’a Circuit Court in Kabacan, with falsification and dishonesty. The complaint alleged that for over ten years, respondent had been illegally collecting fees ranging from ₱400 to ₱500 for the delayed registration of marriages, instead of the prescribed ₱50. To substantiate this, complainant submitted official receipts (OR Nos. 3793213 and 3793392) issued to different individuals. It was further claimed that respondent often failed to issue official receipts for payments related to divorce or conversion registrations and had pawned court typewriters.
In his comment, respondent initially denied all allegations. He presented triplicate copies of the same receipt numbers but with different payor names, suggesting the complainant’s receipts were fabricated. He also denied pawning court property. Due to these contradictory claims, the Court referred the matter for investigation by Shari’a Court Judge Rasad G. Balindong.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Clerk of Court is administratively liable for the acts complained of.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of Grave Misconduct and Dishonesty. During the investigation, respondent retracted his earlier denials and admitted to the unauthorized collection of excessive fees, attributing it to an “honest mistake” due to a heavy workload. He also conceded to sometimes failing to issue official receipts, claiming a lack of available receipt forms. The investigation report, however, established that respondent engaged in a deliberate scheme. He admitted to issuing the same official receipt for two separate transactions by not using a carbon paper, so the original copy (showing the higher, illegal collection) differed from the duplicate and triplicate copies (showing the correct ₱50 fee). This act facilitated the misappropriation of the excess collections. His practice of issuing unaccounted temporary receipts for other fees also led to the conclusion that he pocketed those collections.
The Court emphasized that misconduct involves intentional wrongdoing connected to official duties, with Grave Misconduct requiring elements like corruption or a flagrant disregard of rules. Dishonesty involves a disposition to defraud or deceive. Respondent’s acts—illegal exaction, issuing a single receipt for two transactions to conceal overcharges, and misappropriating court funds—clearly constitute both offenses. His subsequent resignation did not moot the case, as resignation cannot evade administrative liability. For these serious infractions, which severely undermine judicial integrity, the penalty of dismissal is warranted. Respondent is DISMISSED from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and is perpetually disqualified from reemployment in any government agency.