This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-12-15 |
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 | |||||
|
2003-03-26 |
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. | |||||