This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2010-04-07 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The administration of justice is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. It requires that everyone involved in its dispensation from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk live up to the strictest standards of competence, honesty, and integrity in the public service.[1] Any impression of impropriety, misdeed, or negligence in the performance of official functions must be avoided. The Court shall not countenance any conduct, act, or omission on the part of those involved in the administration of justice that violates the norm of public accountability and diminishes the faith of the people in the Judiciary.[2] Indeed, public confidence in our courts is vital to the effective functioning of the Judiciary.[3] | |||||
|
2008-08-11 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Time and again, the Court has pronounced that the administration of justice is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. Everyone, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk must live up to the strictest standards of public service.[28] Clerks of Court, in particular, must be individuals of honesty, probity and competence and they are expected to possess a high degree of discipline and efficiency.[29] Apart from being the chief administrative officers of their respective posts, clerks of court are custodians of the court's funds and revenues, records, property and premises.[30] Hence, they are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of said funds or property.[31] They are judicial officers entrusted to perform delicate functions with regard to the collection of legal fees and are expected to correctly and effectively implement regulations, such that even undue delay in the remittances of amounts collected by them constitutes misfeasance, at the very least.[32] | |||||
|
2006-02-17 |
QUISUMBING, J |
||||
| Delay in the remittances of collections constitutes neglect of duty.[12] 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.[13] Shortages in the amounts to be remitted and the years of delay in the actual remittance constitute neglect of duty for which the respondent shall be administratively liable.[14] Under the Civil Service Rules and the Omnibus Rules implementing it, simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense penalized with suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense; dismissal for the second offense.[15] | |||||
|
2006-02-17 |
QUISUMBING, J |
||||
| [12] Re: Withholding of Other Emoluments of the following Clerks of Court: Elsie C. Remoroza, et al., A.M. No. 01-4-133-MTC, 26 August 2003, 409 SCRA 574, 584. | |||||
|
2005-12-15 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| the collections. The act of misappropriating judiciary funds constitutes dishonesty and grave misconduct which are grave offense punished by dismissal.[26] Not even full payment of collection shortages will exempt the accountable officer from liability.[27] Verily, respondents grave misdemeanours justify his severance from the service. As to the charge of tardiness, it was not sufficiently shown that respondent is liable for tardiness. Absent substantial evidence, we are inclined to absolve respondent Gabral from this charge. Besides, the Certification dated 09 March 2005 issued by the Leave Division of | |||||
|
2005-01-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is the duty of clerks of court to perform their responsibilities faithfully, so that they can fully comply with circulars on deposits of collections. They are reminded to deposit immediately, with authorized government depositories, the various funds they have collected, because they are not authorized to keep those funds in their custody.[33] In her case, she failed to remit her JDF and General Fund collections for eighteen (18) months and eight (8) months, respectively. The length of time she failed to remit her collections is too long a time to be ignored. The continuous violation of the circulars issued by this Court only shows that respondent was grossly negligent in the performance of her official duties. | |||||
|
2004-02-18 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Clerks of court are officers of the law who perform vital functions in the administration of justice. They keep the records and the seal of the court, issue processes, enter judgment and orders, and give certified copies of records upon request. They are also the designated custodians of the court's funds and revenues, records, properties and premises.[6] As such, they are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of such funds and property.[7] Thus, they are expected to possess a high degree of discipline and efficiency in the performance of these functions. For those who have fallen short of their accountabilities, we have not hesitated to impose the ultimate penalty.[8] Even undue delay in the remittances of amounts collected by them at the very least constitutes misfeasance.[9] We will not tolerate or condone any conduct that violate the norms of public accountability and diminish the faith of the people in the judicial system. | |||||