This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2013-10-22 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| As can be gathered from the documentary evidence collected by the audit team, it was established that there were unauthorized withdrawals from the Fiduciary Fund amounting to P5,684,875 while Edig was Clerk of Court. As Clerk of Court, he is primarily accountable for all funds that are collected for the court, whether personally received by him or by a duly appointed cashier who is under his supervision and control. Being the custodian of the court's funds, revenues, and records, Edig is likewise liable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of said funds and property.[49] Moreover, it was likewise found that there were delays in the remittances of the court funds during his tenure. Clerks of Court have always been reminded of their duty to immediately deposit the various funds received by them to the authorized government depositories for they are not supposed to keep funds in their custody.[50] The non-remittance of said amounts deprived the Court of the interest that may be earned if the amounts were deposited in a bank, as prudently required. Shortages in the amounts to be remitted and the years of delay in the actual remittance constitute gross neglect of duty for which Edig should be held administratively liable.[51] | |||||
|
2011-11-29 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The respondent admitted that when he assumed office in 1993, he assigned to Necesito in good faith "the collections, remittances, financial reports and the accountable forms only to find out that some are already missing."[17] This is a highly irresponsible move. As clerk of court, the respondent is the court's accountable officer, not the cash clerk. No amount of good faith can relieve him of his duty to properly administer and safeguard the court's funds. As the Court said in an earlier case, clerks of court are officers of the law who perform vital functions in the prompt and sound administration of justice.[18] They are designated custodians of the court's funds, revenues, records, properties and premises.[19] They are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of such funds and property.[20] We find the respondent liable for gross neglect of duty. | |||||
|
2011-09-13 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Likewise, the practice of respondent in offsetting her collection is not allowed under accounting and auditing rules and regulations.[16] By failing to properly remit the cash collections constituting public funds, she violated the trust reposed in her as disbursement officer of the Judiciary. Likewise, her claim that she did not know that she is the accountable officer for the court collections does not convince Us. Clerks of Court are presumed to know their duty to immediately deposit with the authorized government depositories the various funds they receive, for they are not supposed to keep funds in their personal possession. Her failure to deposit the said amount upon collection was prejudicial to the court, which did not earn interest income on the said amount or was not able to otherwise use the said funds.[17] | |||||
|
2010-02-16 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In his letter dated April 27, 2009, Gimena explained that it had become his practice to deposit or remit the cash collections whenever he would make his monthly report. His express admission that he had been negligent in submitting the monthly report which, consequently, resulted in the delay in remitting the JDF and SAJF does not warrant his exculpation from administrative liability. Likewise, his defenses that he had not used the subject funds for his personal benefit and that he had already deposited the said amounts do not work in his favor. His subsequent restitution of the amount did not alter the fact that he was remiss in the discharge of his duties. Suffice it to state that circulars of the Court must be strictly complied with to protect the safekeeping of funds and collections and to establish full accountability of government funds.[4] Shortages in the amounts to be remitted and the years of delay in the actual remittance constitute gross neglect of duty for which the Clerk of Court shall be administratively liable,[5] gross dishonesty, gross misconduct,[6] and even malversation of public funds.[7] As pointed out by the OCA, the P75,000.00 collected from election protest cases was part of the P150,000.00 he collected in November 2007 which he kept in his personal possession for almost one year (should be more than one year) and, thus, posed the danger of being lost or malversed and deprived the court of interest income. The failure to remit on time judiciary collections deprives the court of interest that may be earned if the amounts are deposited in a bank.[8] His "mistaken belief that the P75,000.00 FF need not be deposited or remitted since it was the source for all expenses in case of revision as provided by the Rules of Procedure in Election Contest" would not constitute valid excuse. Unfamiliarity with procedures will not exempt him from liability. As Clerk of Court II, Gimeno is expected to keep abreast of all applicable laws, jurisprudence and administrative circulars pertinent to his office. As custodian of court funds and revenues, Clerks of Court have always been reminded of their duty to immediately deposit the various funds received by them to the authorized government depositories for they are not supposed to keep funds in their custody.[9] | |||||