OCA-IPI No. 03-1718-P, February 7, 2005
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Clerk IV Tessie Duque

FACTS

This administrative case stemmed from a letter requesting an investigation into anomalies concerning a writ of execution in a criminal case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. The accused, Marirose Valencia, delivered P120,000.00 to respondent Tessie Duque, a Clerk IV detailed at MTCC-Branch 1, for safekeeping pending the resolution of her motion for reconsideration. The case was originally pending in MTCC-Branch 2. When the motion was denied and a writ of execution issued, the sheriff discovered the money was in Duque’s custody, evidenced by a receipt. The presiding judge then issued a garnishment order, and the money was eventually taken from Duque and delivered to the private complainant.
The investigating judge found that while there was a belief the presiding judge of Branch 2 at the time, Judge Ruben R. Plata, was involved, only Duque admitted receipt. Duque claimed she accepted the money merely for safekeeping to render service. Judge Plata denied authorizing the receipt and claimed he immediately instructed Duque to return the funds upon learning of it.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Tessie Duque is administratively liable for her actions in receiving and keeping the money related to a court case.

RULING

Yes, respondent Duque is administratively liable for Simple Misconduct. The Court emphasized that as a Clerk IV, she was not authorized to receive money for any purpose, especially since she was detailed in a branch different from where the case was pending. Even assuming an exigency justified the initial receipt, she became liable for failing to promptly turn over the funds to the proper custodian, the Branch Clerk of Court of MTCC-Branch 2. Instead, she retained the money for approximately 17 months and only released it after a court garnishment order. This act constituted an arrogation of an authority belonging solely to the Branch Clerk of Court.
The Court defined misconduct as unlawful conduct prejudicial to the rights of parties or the cause’s determination, which can be simple or gross. Gross misconduct requires evidence of bad faith, dishonesty, or ill will. The Court found no such evidence against Duque; there was no proof she was motivated by dishonesty or fraudulent intent, as the money was fully accounted for and eventually delivered to the rightful claimant. Consequently, her liability was limited to simple misconduct. She was suspended without pay for two months. Judge Plata, while found without complicity in the monetary transaction, was advised to be more prudent and circumspect in his dealings to avoid any appearance of impropriety.