View full case

OCA v. MRS. ELADIA T. CUNTING

FACTS:

In this administrative case, a financial audit conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) revealed various irregularities in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Zamboanga City. The audit team was formed following a complaint from Atty. Linda Lim alleging delays in fund release and dishonored checks by the Clerk of Court, Eladia T. Cunting. The audit team found that Cunting had been negligent in her duties and that there were significant shortages in the court's funds.

In response to the OCA's recommendation, the Court issued a Resolution directing Cunting to deposit specific amounts into different accounts and submit supporting documents. Cunting also requested that any unaccounted amount be deducted from her retirement benefits. However, Cunting failed to comply with the Court's orders and requests, which led to fines imposed on her and a requirement to show cause why she should not be held in contempt.

Upon reevaluation, the OCA discovered further irregularities, including an open vault, unconfirmed cash, missing accountable forms, and issued receipts that were not requisitioned. The audit team specifically found a shortage in the collections for the Clerk of Court General Fund amounting to P116,431.30, which resulted from unremitted collections and unconfirmed deposits. It was also uncovered that Cunting did not maintain a cash book or regularly submit monthly reports of collections for the Clerk of Court General Fund. Discrepancies were also observed between the amounts indicated in official receipts and the monthly reports.

Furthermore, there was a shortage of P574,927.47 in the collections for the Judiciary Development Fund. This shortage stemmed from unaccounted collections and unconfirmed deposits. The audit team also discovered deposit slips without any machine validation, which were not deemed valid deposits. Taken together, these findings revealed a significant total shortage in the Judiciary Development Fund.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the unconfirmed deposits per deposit slips without machine validations should be considered as part of the unremitted collections.

  2. Whether the discrepancies between the amount indicated in the official receipts and those indicated in the cash book for the Judiciary Development Fund constitute an understatement of collections.

  3. Whether the lack of cash books and monthly reports for certain periods for the Judiciary Development Fund is a violation of accounting procedures.

  4. Whether the release of cash bail without supporting court orders and acknowledgment receipts is a violation of accounting procedures.

  5. Whether the respondent clerk of court is guilty of gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and gross misconduct.

  6. Whether the respondent clerk of court should be held liable for the shortages in the Clerk of Court General Fund, Judiciary Development Fund, and Fiduciary Fund.

  7. Whether the respondent's failure to defend herself constitutes a waiver to file her comment and an acknowledgment of the truthfulness of the charges against her.

  8. Whether the respondent's letter requesting the use of her accrued leave credits admits her accountability for the shortages in the court's funds.

  9. Whether the previous dismissal of the respondent from the service renders the case moot.

  10. Whether the respondent should be fined for gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and grave misconduct.

  11. Whether the respondent should be held in contempt of court for her failure to comply with the Court's orders.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the unconfirmed deposits per deposit slips without machine validations should be considered as part of the unremitted collections.

  2. Yes, the discrepancies between the amount indicated in the official receipts and those indicated in the cash book for the Judiciary Development Fund constitute an understatement of collections.

  3. Yes, the lack of cash books and monthly reports for certain periods for the Judiciary Development Fund is a violation of accounting procedures.

  4. Yes, the release of cash bail without supporting court orders and acknowledgment receipts is a violation of accounting procedures.

  5. The respondent clerk of court is found guilty of gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and gross misconduct.

  6. The respondent clerk of court is ordered to restitute the following amounts: P116,431.30 to the Clerk of Court General Fund, P574,927.47 to the Judiciary Development Fund, and P10,899,019.03 to the Fiduciary Fund. The National Bureau of Investigation is directed to arrest the respondent and detain her until she complies with the directive to restitute the shortages.

  7. The respondent's failure to defend herself is construed as a waiver to file her comment and an acknowledgment of the truthfulness of the charges against her.

  8. The respondent's letter requesting the use of her accrued leave credits admits her accountability for the shortages in the court's funds.

  9. The previous dismissal of the respondent from the service does not render the case moot as she cannot avoid administrative liability for additional serious offenses.

  10. Instead of dismissal from the service, a fine of P40,000.00 to be deducted from the respondent's accrued leave credits is imposed.

  11. The respondent is held in contempt of court for her failure to comply with the Court's orders. The National Bureau of Investigation is directed to arrest and detain her until she complies with the directive to restitute the balance of the shortages.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Deposit slips that are not machine validated shall not be considered as deposits.

  • Discrepancies between official receipts and cash books constitute an understatement of collections.

  • Cash books and monthly reports are necessary for accurate recording of collections.

  • Release of cash bail should be supported by court orders and acknowledgment receipts.

  • Clerks of court have the responsibility of safeguarding the integrity of the court's funds, revenues, records, properties, and premises.

  • Clerks of court are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of court funds and property.

  • The court will not tolerate dishonesty and malversation as these offenses diminish the public's faith in the judiciary.

  • Court officials must live up to the strictest standards of competence, integrity, and diligence in the public service.

  • The image of a court of justice is reflected in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the individuals working in the court.

  • The administration of justice requires everyone involved to adhere to the highest standards of honesty and integrity.

  • Silence in the face of false accusations is almost always construed as an implied admission of the truth thereof.

  • Dishonesty, particularly that which amounts to malversation of public funds, will not be tolerated.

  • Previous dismissal from the service does not render a case moot if there are additional serious offenses involved.

  • Courts of justice should not be regarded as mere havens of thievery and corruption.

  • Employees in the judiciary have a duty to obey the orders and processes of the Court without delay.