A.M. No. SDC-14-7-P (Formerly A.M. No. 14-09-01-SC). December 06, 2016
Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, vs. Ashary M. Alauya, Clerk of Court VI, Shari’a District Court, Marawi City, Lanao del Sur, Respondent.

FACTS

A financial audit was conducted on the books of accounts of the Shari’a District Court (SDC) of Marawi City, covering various periods, due to its failure to submit mandatory monthly financial reports and an anonymous complaint. The audit aimed to verify the accuracy of cash transactions and the timely deposit of judiciary funds. Upon the audit team’s arrival, respondent Clerk of Court Ashary M. Alauya was absent. An initial cash count revealed unremitted collections totaling P104,852.00. Alauya later appeared and presented recent deposit slips for some funds but failed to immediately produce P100,000.00 in Fiduciary Fund collections, which he claimed were kept at his home due to the court’s lack of a bank trust account.
Further audit findings revealed significant irregularities. A substantial number of accountable official receipts were missing. Examination of case records uncovered multiple instances of falsified Legal Fees Forms, where amounts collected were altered to reflect lower filing fees than those actually paid. The audit also established chronic delays in the deposit of various judiciary funds, including the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and the Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF), with some remittances delayed for years. Alauya had also been previously suspended in a separate administrative case for gross neglect in the custody of court property.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Ashary M. Alauya, Clerk of Court VI, is administratively liable for his handling of judiciary funds and court property.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross dishonesty and gross misconduct, warranting dismissal from service. The legal logic is anchored on the fiduciary nature of a Clerk of Court’s duties as a custodian of court funds and property. The audit findings constitute clear and convincing evidence of breach of this solemn duty. The failure to immediately produce the P100,000.00 upon demand gave rise to a presumption of malversation. The subsequent discovery of falsified Legal Fees Forms is direct evidence of dishonesty, as it involves deliberate alteration of official records to conceal the actual amounts collected. The chronic failure to deposit various judiciary funds within the prescribed periods constitutes gross neglect and violation of explicit circulars, undermining public trust in the judiciary’s financial integrity.
The Court emphasized that Clerks of Court are bound by stringent rules requiring the immediate deposit of collections. The prolonged and unjustified delays, some spanning years, are inexcusable. The loss of accountable official receipts compounds his liability, as it facilitates unrecorded collections. His prior administrative sanction demonstrates a pattern of disregard for proper procedure. Collectively, these acts—falsification, failure to deposit, and loss of accountable forms—transcend simple negligence and amount to gross dishonesty and gross misconduct, which are grave offenses under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. The penalty of dismissal, with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in government, is imposed to preserve the judiciary’s integrity.