Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

RE: REPORT ON JUDICIAL

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	AM No. P-06-2221 2010-10-05	OCA v. RODELIO E. MARCELO PER CURIAM
While it had not been established that Marcelo malversed court funds, it cannot be disputed that his acts and omissions constitute a betrayal of the trust and confidence the Court reposes on a senior officer. In Re: Report on the Judicial and Financial Audit in RTC, Branch 4, Panabo, Davao del Norte,[18] we stressed -
	AM No. P-05-2098. 2005-12-15	CONCERNED CITIZEN v. ELEUTERIO C. GABRAL PER CURIAM
to keep funds in their custody.[22] A failure to timely turn over cash deposited with them constitutes, not just gross negligence in the performance of their duty, but gross dishonesty, if not malversation.[23] For those who have fallen short of their accountabilities, we have not hesitated to impose the ultimate penalty.[24] This Court has never and will never tolerate nor condone any conduct which would violate the norms of public accountability, and diminish, or even tend to diminish, the faith of the people in the justice system.[25] There is no doubt that respondent had been delinquent in the performance of his duties as clerk of court with regard to financial concerns. He did not regularly submit his reports. He did not record his cash transactions in the cashbook. Worse, he misappropriated for himself
	AM NO. P-04-1894 2005-08-09	RE: REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT ON BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF MS. ADELINA R. GARROVILLAS SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In Re: Report on the Judicial and Financial Audit of RTC-Br. 4, Panabo, Davao Del Norte,[11] we held that failure of the Clerk of Court to remit the court funds collected to the Municipal Treasurer constitutes gross neglect of duty, dishonesty and grave misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Under Rule IV, Section 52-A of the Civil Service Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,[12] these are grave offenses punishable by dismissal even committed for the first time.
	AM NO. P-97-1258 2005-01-31	OCA v. CLERK OF COURT ERMELINA C. BERNARDINO PER CURIAM
We find respondent Banting's explanation of stealth and deception on the part of Tuazon unsatisfactory. As Clerk of Court, he has general supervision over all personnel of his court and was its cashier and disbursement officer (Section A[1] and Section B, Chapter VII, Manual for Clerks of Court). As cashier and disbursement officer, it was his duty to collect and receive, by himself or through a duly appointed cashier, all monies in payment of all legal fees, as well as to receive deposits, fines and dues.[45] It devolves upon him to personally attend to the collection of the fees, the safekeeping of the money collected, the making of the proper entries thereof in the corresponding book of accounts, and the deposit of the same in the offices concerned. The collection of legal fees, by its nature, is a delicate function of clerks of court as judicial officers entrusted with the correct and effective implementation of the regulations thereon.[46] He failed to properly supervise a subordinate. Though it appears that Ms. Tuazon was the one in charge of collecting the fees and recording the transactions, it behooves respondent Banting to ensure Ms. Tuazon was performing her duties and responsibilities to the end that there is full compliance with circulars on deposits and collections.[47] This, he failed to do.
	AM No. MTJ-04-1525 2004-01-29	RUFINO CASIMIRO v. JUDGE OCTAVIO FERNANDEZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
Respondent judge's paying back of the collection does not thus absolve him.[25]
	AM No. P-02-1534 2003-03-26	JUDGE OSCAR S. AQUINO v. RICARDO C. OLIVARES SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Clerks of Court are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts. 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.[5] Hence, as custodians of court funds and revenues,[6] they have always been reminded of their duty to immediately deposit the various funds received by them to the authorized government depositories[7] for they are not supposed to keep funds in their custody.[8] For those who have fallen short of their accountabilities, we have not hesitated to impose the ultimate penalty.[9] Even undue delay in the remittances of amounts collected by them at the very least constitutes misfeasance.[10] This Court has never and will never tolerate nor condone any conduct which would violate the norms of public accountability and diminish, or even tend to diminish, the faith of the people in the justice system.[11] Indeed, as an officer of the court, respondent was duty-bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in the performance of his officially designated duties.[12] He has fallen short of this standard. Thus, we find him administratively liable for simple neglect of duty.
	AM No. P-00-1381 and AM No. P-00-1382 2001-07-31	JUDGE EFREN B. MALLARE v. RONALD ALLAN A. FERRY PER CURIAM
Respondent never appeared during the investigation of his case despite due notice to him. He never appeared to rebut the charges against him by complainant. As we held in one case,[12] failure of a Clerk of Court to turnover money deposited with him and to explain and present evidence thereon constitutes gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and even malversation of public funds which this Court will never countenance as they indubitably diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary.[13]