"x x x.
The Court’s Ruling
Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.[10] Those charged with the dispensation of justice, from the justices and judges to the lowliest clerks, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Not only must their conduct at all times be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, it must be beyond suspicion.[11] Thus, the Court does not hesitate to condemn and sanction such improper conduct, act or omission of those involved in the administration of justice that violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes or tends to diminish the faith of the public in the Judiciary.[12]
It is clear in the findings of the audit team, as bolstered by Nini’s admission, that irregularities in the administration of court funds were indeed committed. In her explanation,[13] Nini chiefly blamed her heavy workload for the lapses discovered by the audit team. She attributed her shortcomings to the heavy weight of her responsibilities as an accountable officer and an officer of the court performing the tasks of an administrative officer, liaison officer and supply and property custodian. Due to this, she would often deposit funds beyond the time allowed, resulting in unremitted interest and forfeited cashbonds. Everytime she would cause the withdrawal of interest of fiduciary funds, her practice was to place the amount inside an envelope to be locked inside her vault together with other envelopes containing collections from different funds, decisions of cases due for promulgation, unused official receipts, and marked money used as evidence in criminal cases.
Undoubtedly, Nini failed to perform her duty to the degree expected of her office. Settled is the role of clerks of court as judicial officers entrusted with the delicate function with regard to collection of legal fees. They are expected to correctly and effectively implement regulations relating to proper administration of court funds. Clerks of court perform a delicate function as designated custodians of the court's funds, revenues, records, properties, and premises. As such, they are generally regarded as treasurer, accountant, guard, and physical plant manager thereof. It is also their duty to ensure that the proper procedures are followed in the collection of cash bonds. Clerks of court are officers of the law who perform vital functions in the prompt and sound administration of justice. Their office is the hub of adjudicative and administrative orders, processes and concerns.[14] Hence, in case of a lapse in the performance of their sworn duties, the Court finds no room for tolerance and is then constrained to impose the necessary penalty to the erring officer. Surely, Nini must have been acquainted with the tasks of her office. She is expected to have assumed her office with a degree of competence and alacrity worthy of this esteemed position in the Judiciary. Hence, she should have been ready to discharge her sworn duties with the conviction to do away with whining and nitpicking. The Court cannot countenance this attitude, lest pardons for ineptitude become the practice in its ranks. Indeed, the Court zealously aims to safeguard the people’s faith in the Judiciary by improving the route by which justice is served. Certainly, an officer who constantly bleats about the complexity of his responsibilities resultantly neglects his duties. Such an officer does not aid in the Judiciary’s goal and must then bear the appropriate penalty.
It is hereby emphasized that it is the duty of clerks of court to perform their responsibilities faithfully, so that they can fully comply with the circulars on deposits of collections. They are reminded to deposit immediately with authorized government depositaries the various funds they have collected because they are not authorized to keep those funds in their custody.[15] The fact that the collected amounts were kept in the safety vault does not reduce the degree of defiance of the rules.
Records show that SC Circular Nos. 13-92 and 5-93 were not followed by Nini. These issuances provide the guidelines for the proper administration of court funds. The former orders that all fiduciary collections “shall be deposited immediately by the Clerk of Court concerned upon receipt thereof, with an authorized government depositary bank,” while the latter designates the Landbank of the Philippines
Safekeeping of funds and collections is essential to an orderly administration of justice, and no protestation of good faith can override the mandatory nature of the circulars designed to promote full accountability for government funds.[16]Nini’sunwarranted failure to fulfill these responsibilities deserves administrative sanction.
Delay in the remittance of collection constitutes neglect of duty.[17] Further, the Court has stated that the failure to remit judiciary collections on time deprives the court of the interest that may be earned if the amounts are deposited in a bank.[18] Under the Civil Service Rules and Omnibus Rules Implementing it, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense penalized with suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.[19]
It bears stressing that Clerks of Court are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts, and, with regard to the collection of legal fees, they perform a delicate function as judicial officers entrusted with the correct and effective implementation of regulations thereon. Even the undue delay in the remittances of amounts collected by them at the very least constitutes misfeasance. On the other hand, a vital administrative function of a judge is the effective management of his court and this includes control of the conduct of the court’s ministerial officers. It should be brought home to both that the safekeeping of funds and collections is essential to the goal of an orderly administration of justice and no protestation of good faith can override the mandatory nature of the Circulars designed to promote full accountability for government funds.[20]
With this in mind, the Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA that Presiding Judge Manreal should be reminded to exercise his administrative duty and strictly monitor the financial transactions of MTCC, Bogo City Cebu , in strict compliance with the issuances of the Court.
The Court is also in accord with the recommendation of the OCA that since the Audit Team found that Nini failed to collect the mandatory One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for the STF, Judge Manreal should be directed to designate an Acting Clerk of Court to collect the same every case filed in court pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 10 of the Administrative Circular No. 35-2004.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to declare Estrella Y. Nini, Clerk of Court,Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Bogo City, Cebu, GUILTY of Gross Neglect of Duty for which she is ordered SUSPENDED for six (6) months from service, FINED Five Thousand (₱5,000.00) Pesos for delayed remittances of Fiduciary Fund collections and failure to collect the required STF for Civil Cases, and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Presiding Judge Dante R. Manreal is hereby directed to DESIGNATE an Acting Clerk of Court to collect the mandatory One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for every case filed in court pursuant to paragraph 2, Section 10 of the Amended Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 and OPEN a new account for Sheriff’s Trust Fund (STF) transactions with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) under the name of the court, with the Executive/Presiding Judge and OIC/Clerk of Court as authorized signatories. Presiding Judge Manreal is also advised to STRICTLY MONITOR the financial transactions of MTCC, Bogo City Cebu , in strict compliance with the issuances of the Court.
SO ORDERED.
x x x."