SECOND DIVISION
[ A.M. No. P-07-2415 [Formerly A.M. No. 07-10-279-MCTC], October 19, 2009 ]OCA v. ALFREDO MANASAN +
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ALFREDO MANASAN, CLERK OF COURT II, MCTC, ORANI-SAMAL, BATAAN, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
OCA v. ALFREDO MANASAN +
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ALFREDO MANASAN, CLERK OF COURT II, MCTC, ORANI-SAMAL, BATAAN, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed the conduct of a financial audit on the books and accounts of Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Orani-Samal, Bataan, for the period July 1, 1999 up to September 24, 2007.
Narciso Tolentino, Jr., Court Interpreter I and former Officer-in-Charge of the MCTC who handled the financial transactions of the court from July 1, 1999 up to May 31, 2001 was cleared by the audit team of any accountability.
In the case of Alfredo P. Manasan (respondent), Clerk of Court II of the MCTC who handled the financial transactions of the court from June 1, 2001 up to September 24, 2007, the audit team found that he had an unremitted total collection of P83,110, broken down as follows:
Accordingly, the audit team gave its Observations as follows:
By Resolution of December 12, 2007, the Court, acting on the Report of the audit team, required respondent to manifest whether he was willing to submit the matter for resolution on the basis of his explanation and to submit to the Fiscal Monitoring Division, Court Management Office, a copy of the validated deposit slip for the P2,000 reflected in the Report which should be restored to the Fiduciary Fund Account of the MCTC.[5]
Respondent failed to comply, however, with this Court's December 12, 2007 Resolution. Thus, by Resolution of August 4, 2008,[6] the Court required him to show cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with or held in contempt, and to comply with its December 12, 2007 Resolution. By letter of September 29, 2008,[7] respondent attributed his failure to comply with the December 12, 2007 Resolution to his father's being "so sick" and hospitalized as he in fact had "reached his time."
As to the directive under par. 2b of the December 12, 2007 Resolution which required him to submit to the Fiscal Monitoring Division, Court Management Office, a copy of the validated deposit slips pertaining to the P2,000 which was erroneously withdrawn from the Fiduciary Fund Account of MCTC, respondent explained that since a monthly report[8] was already forwarded to the OCA, he was confident that the report would "get your attention that the mistake done was already corrected" hence, he did not bother to send a copy of the validated deposit slip.
By Resolution of November 26, 2008,[9] the Court referred respondent's September 29, 2008 letter to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.
By its January 20, 2009 Memorandum,[10] the OCA came up with the following evaluation:
Thus, the OCA recommended that
In compliance with the Court's March 9, 2009 Resolution,[13] respondent submitted his May 5, 2009 letter-manifestation[14] stating that he was willing to submit the matter on the basis of the pleadings already filed. He also attached a copy of his transmittal letter to the Fiscal Monitoring Division, Court Management Office bearing a copy of the validated deposit slip and other supporting documents.
The Court finds well-taken the recommendation of the OCA that respondent be fined in the amount of P5,000 for failure to comply with the December 12, 2007 Resolution issued by the Court.
An order or resolution of the Court is not to be construed as a mere request which could be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. To do so shows disrespect to the Court.[15]
Without the least delay, every court officer or employee is duty bound to obey the orders and processes of the Court and to exercise at all times a high degree of professionalism.[16]
Respondent, being a clerk of court, has the duty to immediately deposit the various funds he collects because he is not authorized to keep them in his custody. He failed in his duty, however.[17]
Delay in depositing funds collected constitutes simple neglect of duty[18] which, under Section 52 (B) (1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[19] is penalized with suspension for one month and one day to six months on the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. It appearing that this is respondent's first offense for simple neglect of duty, he faces suspension for one month and one day.
WHEREFORE, respondent, Alfredo P. Manasan, is FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000) for his delayed and partial and inadequate compliance with this Court's December 12, 2007 Resolution. And for simple neglect of duty, he is SUSPENDED for one month and one day, without pay. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, (Chairperson), Nachura*, Brion, and Abad, JJ., concur.
* Additional member per Special Order No. 730 dated October 5, 2009.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-9.
[2] Id. at 4-5.
[3] Id. at 5-8.
[4] Id. at 8.
[5] Id. at 19-20.
[6] Id. at 22-23.
[7] Id. at 24. It was received by the Division Clerk of Court and the OCA on October 14, 2008.
[8] Id. at 27-30. The monthly report was done by Narciso P. Tolentino, Jr.
[9] Id. at 36.
[10] Id. at 37-39.
[11] Id. at 38-39.
[12] Id. at 39.
[13] Id. at 40-41.
[14] Id. at 43.
[15] Dee C. Chuan and Sons, Inc. v. William Simon P. Peralta, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1917, April 16, 2009.
[16] Areola v. Ilano, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2163, February 18, 2009.
[17] Vide In-House Financial Audit, Conducted in the Books of Accounts of Khalil B. Dipatuan, RTC-Malabang, Lanao del Norte, A.M. No. P-06-2121, June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 417, 422-423.
[18] Id.
[19] Resolution No. 991936, August 31, 1999.
Narciso Tolentino, Jr., Court Interpreter I and former Officer-in-Charge of the MCTC who handled the financial transactions of the court from July 1, 1999 up to May 31, 2001 was cleared by the audit team of any accountability.
In the case of Alfredo P. Manasan (respondent), Clerk of Court II of the MCTC who handled the financial transactions of the court from June 1, 2001 up to September 24, 2007, the audit team found that he had an unremitted total collection of P83,110, broken down as follows:
In its October 19, 2007 Memorandum,[1] the audit team reported:
FUNDS PERIOD COVERED AMOUNT Judiciary Development Fund 04/03/07-09/18/07 P8,921 Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund 04/07/07-09/18/07 13,429 Fiduciary Fund 04/13/97-09/12/07 54,000 Mediation Fund 04/03/07-09/07/07 6,500 Legal Research Fund 04/03/07-09/07/07 260 TOTAL 83,110
Surprisingly, upon demand... to produce the supposedly cash on hand, [respondent] was not able to do so. According to [respondent], the unremitted collections was allegedly kept in their house for safekeeping. The audit team immediately informed him that the practice of not remitting the Court's collection on time is strictly prohibited. [Respondent] started explaining the reason why he was safe keeping it instead of depositing it to the depositary bank. According to him, he was traumatized by an incident which happened when he allegedly lost an amount approximately more than Sixty Thousand [P]esos (P60,000.00). He showed to the audit team his affidavit stating therein that, allegedly, on the day of August 19, 2005, he was victimized by a pickpocket when he failed to catch up with the last banking hours of Land Bank and proceeded instead to a drugstore to buy medicine for he was not feeling well that day and to buy as well some basic needs for his family; that upon arriving at his house, to his surprise, the envelope containing the cash bond placed in his pocket was allegedly missing. The incident, according to him, was reported to the police and entered in the police blotter logbook. The said P60,000.00 pertains to cash bond posted for Criminal Case No. 10094 under OR No. 17871671 collected on August 19, 2005 which was deposited and restituted by [respondent] only last January 24, 2006.
[Respondent] was directed thru a letter prepared by the audit team leader to deposit immediately the supposed cash on hand consisting of unremitted collections amounting to Eighty-Three Thousand One Hundred Ten [P]esos (P83,110.00) in their respective bank accounts on the following banking day; and EX[P]LAIN in a form of Affidavit the reason why he incurred such accountability....
On September 24, 2007, Monday, three o'clock in the afternoon, after the team leader and [respondent] had a reconciliation of the balances to be deposited to LBP, the former asked the latter the deposit slips of the said amount, [respondent] replied that he failed to go to the bank because, according to him, he was completing the Monthly Report of Cases. [Respondent] just made a promise to deposit it on the following day.
On September 25, 2007, while [respondent] was not yet around, the team leader had a talk with Presiding Judge Ma. Cristina J. Mendoza-Pizarro. The purpose of the conversation was to relieve [respondent] of his financial duties and designate someone else suited for the task. Since former Officer-In-Charge Narciso P. Tolentino, Court Interpreter, is the one next-in-rank to the position of Clerk of Court II, he was designated as new accountable officer replacing [respondent]. [Respondent] came late in the afternoon and only by that time he was informed that his function as Accountable Officer was suspended. But before the audit team had the opportunity of telling him about the suspension of his financial duties, he hurriedly informed the team that he has not yet deposited the amount to the LBP. Allegedly, he had in his hand the cash but decided not to deposit it when he realized the danger in doing it [to] him and [it] came on his thoughts the trauma of the pickpocket incident.
On September 28, 2007, [respondent] submitted to the team via LBC the validated duplicate copies of deposit slips together with his explanation.[2] (Emphasis in the original; italics and underscoring supplied)
Accordingly, the audit team gave its Observations as follows:
It was noted by the team that it took him a week before he restituted the cash shortages totaling to Eighty-Three Thousand One Hundred Ten Pesos (P83,110.00) and only by the time the team had left the place.The audit team thus recommended that:
Based on the financial records of the MCTC-Orani-Samal, collections and remittances as well as withdrawals of cash bonds were properly done by Mr. Manasan since June 2001 until March 2007. The cash shortages in his accountability started to accumulate in April 2007 until the audit date.
x x x x
Further examination of the court's financial transactions for the period covered from July 1, 1999 to August 31, 2007 disclosed the following audit findings and/or observations per fund:
1. JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND:
The above balance of accountability was paid and deposited on September 27, 2007. The said deposit resulted to over remittance of collections of One thousand Sixty-Six pesos and 60/100 (P1,066.60), which is the sum of over-remittances on April 11, 2006 and on February 21, 2007, P989.80 and P76.80, respectively. The audit team noted as well that this Court is remitting the net interest earned on Fiduciary Fund deposits to this account without issuing a receipt for the amount deposited.
2. SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR THE JUDICIARY FUND:
The unremitted collections was paid and deposited on September 27, 2007 and October 3, 2007.
x x x x
4. FIDUCIARY FUND:
P 792,500.00 2,137,700.00 2,930,200.00 2,541,000.00 389,200.44 341,200.00 P 48,000.00 2,000.00 50,000.00 48,000.00 P 2,000.00
The unremitted collections as of August 31, 2007 totalling to Forty-eight Thousand pesos (P48,000.00) was paid and deposited on September 27, 2007, broken down as follows:
The shortage of Two Thousand pesos (P2,000.00) is the erroneous withdrawal from the Fiduciary Fund account of MCTC-Orani-Samal, Bataan for Criminal Case No. 5634 which was collected under Official Receipt No. 5746103 dated June 17, 2002 by MTC-Abucay, Bataan.
5. MEDIATION FUND:
Total Collections, July 1, 1999 - Aug. 31, 2007
Less: Total remittances, same period
Balance of Accountability
Less: Deposits Made, 9/27/07
DIFFERENCE
46,500.00
5,000.00
5,000.00
P 0.00
The above shortage was deposited on September 27, 2007.
6. SHERIFF/PROCESS SERVER TRUST FUND:
x x x x
As shown in the Subsidiary Ledger of the Revenue Section-Accounting Division, FMO, OCA, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Orani-Samal, Bata[a]n failed to submit to the Supreme Court the monthly reports of collections/deposits/withdrawals for the period covered from April 2007 to August 2007, which is a clear violation of the court's circulars and other issuances on the proper handling of funds.[3] (Capitalization, emphasis, underscoring in the original; Italics supplied)
1. This financial audit report be DOCKETED as a regular Administrative Matter against Mr. Alfredo P. Manasan, Clerk of Court II, MCTC-Orani-Samal, Bataan.
2. Mr. ALFREDO P. MANASAN, Clerk of Court II, be DIRECTED to
COORDINATE with the Clerk of Court of MTC-Abucay, Bataan for the withdrawal of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000) representing cash bond collection of MTC-Abucay, Bataan under Official Receipt No. 5746103 dated June 17, 2002 which was erroneously withdrawn on July 22, 2003 from the Fiduciary Fund account of MCTC-Orani-Samal, Bataan;
SUBMIT to the Fiscal Monitoring Division, Court Management Office a copy of the validated deposit slips pertaining to no. 2.1 above;
x x x x[4] (Capitalization, emphasis and italics in the original)
By Resolution of December 12, 2007, the Court, acting on the Report of the audit team, required respondent to manifest whether he was willing to submit the matter for resolution on the basis of his explanation and to submit to the Fiscal Monitoring Division, Court Management Office, a copy of the validated deposit slip for the P2,000 reflected in the Report which should be restored to the Fiduciary Fund Account of the MCTC.[5]
Respondent failed to comply, however, with this Court's December 12, 2007 Resolution. Thus, by Resolution of August 4, 2008,[6] the Court required him to show cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with or held in contempt, and to comply with its December 12, 2007 Resolution. By letter of September 29, 2008,[7] respondent attributed his failure to comply with the December 12, 2007 Resolution to his father's being "so sick" and hospitalized as he in fact had "reached his time."
As to the directive under par. 2b of the December 12, 2007 Resolution which required him to submit to the Fiscal Monitoring Division, Court Management Office, a copy of the validated deposit slips pertaining to the P2,000 which was erroneously withdrawn from the Fiduciary Fund Account of MCTC, respondent explained that since a monthly report[8] was already forwarded to the OCA, he was confident that the report would "get your attention that the mistake done was already corrected" hence, he did not bother to send a copy of the validated deposit slip.
By Resolution of November 26, 2008,[9] the Court referred respondent's September 29, 2008 letter to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.
By its January 20, 2009 Memorandum,[10] the OCA came up with the following evaluation:
... Manasan's explanation [is] completely unsatisfactory. He cannot simply shrug off his non-compliance with the Court's directive and pass the blame to his faltering memory to justify his inaction. His explanation displays a cavalier attitude that mocks the lawful authority of this Court.
It should be stressed that a [r]esolution of the Supreme Court is not to be construed as a mere request nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. Directives issued by this Court are not to be treated lightly, certainly not on the pretext that one has forgotten said directives. Effective and efficient administration of justice demands nothing less than faithful adherence to the rules and orders laid down by the Court and in this regard, the respondent failed to show such adherence. Instead, he demonstrated his defiance of the Court's clear order which he should have obeyed without delay.
Further, respondent Manasan still failed to comply with the Court's directive to submit to the Fiscal Monitoring Division of OCA's Court Management Office a copy of the validated deposit slip evidencing deposit of the P2,000.00 to the Fiduciary Account of the MCTC, Orani-Samal, Bataan. Rather than submit a copy of the said deposit slip to the FMO, CMO, respondent Manasan merely relied on the Monthly Report submitted by Mr. Narciso P. Tolentino, Court Interpreter I, MCTC, Orani-Samal, Bataan. We find such attitude indicative of his arrogance.
Indifference to or defiance of the Court's orders or resolutions may be punished with dismissal, suspension, or fine as warranted by the circumstances.
In the case at bar, we deem it sufficient that a fine be imposed on respondent Manasan considering that this is his first administrative offense.[11] (Underscoring supplied)
Thus, the OCA recommended that
...for his disobedience to and defiance of the Court's Resolution, respondent Alfredo P. Manasan, Clerk of Court, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Orani-Samal, Bataan, be FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), which fine shall be payable to the Cash Division, OCA; and that he be directed to COMPLY with the Resolution dated 12 December 2007 [which required him to submit a copy of the deposit slip of the P2,000 to the Fiduciary Fund]. Payment of the fine and compliance with the Court's Resolution dated 12 December 2007 should be effected within a NON-EXTENDIBLE period of ten (10) days from notice hereof.[12] (Capitalization in the original)
In compliance with the Court's March 9, 2009 Resolution,[13] respondent submitted his May 5, 2009 letter-manifestation[14] stating that he was willing to submit the matter on the basis of the pleadings already filed. He also attached a copy of his transmittal letter to the Fiscal Monitoring Division, Court Management Office bearing a copy of the validated deposit slip and other supporting documents.
The Court finds well-taken the recommendation of the OCA that respondent be fined in the amount of P5,000 for failure to comply with the December 12, 2007 Resolution issued by the Court.
An order or resolution of the Court is not to be construed as a mere request which could be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. To do so shows disrespect to the Court.[15]
Without the least delay, every court officer or employee is duty bound to obey the orders and processes of the Court and to exercise at all times a high degree of professionalism.[16]
Respondent, being a clerk of court, has the duty to immediately deposit the various funds he collects because he is not authorized to keep them in his custody. He failed in his duty, however.[17]
Delay in depositing funds collected constitutes simple neglect of duty[18] which, under Section 52 (B) (1) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[19] is penalized with suspension for one month and one day to six months on the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. It appearing that this is respondent's first offense for simple neglect of duty, he faces suspension for one month and one day.
WHEREFORE, respondent, Alfredo P. Manasan, is FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000) for his delayed and partial and inadequate compliance with this Court's December 12, 2007 Resolution. And for simple neglect of duty, he is SUSPENDED for one month and one day, without pay. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing, (Chairperson), Nachura*, Brion, and Abad, JJ., concur.
* Additional member per Special Order No. 730 dated October 5, 2009.
[1] Rollo, pp. 3-9.
[2] Id. at 4-5.
[3] Id. at 5-8.
[4] Id. at 8.
[5] Id. at 19-20.
[6] Id. at 22-23.
[7] Id. at 24. It was received by the Division Clerk of Court and the OCA on October 14, 2008.
[8] Id. at 27-30. The monthly report was done by Narciso P. Tolentino, Jr.
[9] Id. at 36.
[10] Id. at 37-39.
[11] Id. at 38-39.
[12] Id. at 39.
[13] Id. at 40-41.
[14] Id. at 43.
[15] Dee C. Chuan and Sons, Inc. v. William Simon P. Peralta, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1917, April 16, 2009.
[16] Areola v. Ilano, A.M. No. RTJ-09-2163, February 18, 2009.
[17] Vide In-House Financial Audit, Conducted in the Books of Accounts of Khalil B. Dipatuan, RTC-Malabang, Lanao del Norte, A.M. No. P-06-2121, June 26, 2008, 555 SCRA 417, 422-423.
[18] Id.
[19] Resolution No. 991936, August 31, 1999.