Lawyerly

AM No. P-10-2840

2015-06-23

PER CURIAM

Failure of a public officer, Nicolas in this case, to remit funds upon demand by an authorized officer constitutes prima facie evidence that the public officer has put such missing funds or property to personal use.[28] Without Nicolas' explanation as to the non-remittance of court collections while she was the accountable officer, the prima facie presumption stands.

AM No. P-10-2800

2014-11-18

OCA v. MRS. AURORA T. ZUÑIGA

PER CURIAM

Indeed, a public servant is expected to exhibit, at all times, the highest degree of honesty and integrity, and should be made accountable to all those whom he serves. There is no place in the Judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.[49]

AM No. P-09-2647

2012-07-17

OCA v. LUNALINDA M. PERADILLA

PER CURIAM

Section 1, Article XI of the Constitution declares that a public office is a public trust, and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. The demand for moral uprightness is more pronounced for the members and personnel of the judiciary who are involved in the dispensation of justice. The conduct of court members and personnel must not only be characterized with propriety and decorum but must also be above suspicion,[10] for any act of impropriety can seriously erode or diminish the people's confidence in the judiciary.[11] As frontliners in the administration of justice, they should live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the public service.[12]

AM No. P-07-2364

2011-01-25

REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED ON BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SONIA L. DY v. ATTY. GRACIANO D. CUANICO

PER CURIAM

Those charged with the dispensation of justice, from the justices and judges to the lowliest clerks, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.[39] A public servant is expected to exhibit, at all times, the highest degree of honesty and integrity, and should be made accountable to all those whom he serves. There is no place in the judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.[40]

AM No. P-05-2046

2009-09-17

OCA v. CLERK OF COURT FE P. GANZAN

PER CURIAM

Ganzan's refusal to face head-on the charges against her is contrary to the principle that the first impulse of an innocent person, when accused of wrongdoing, is to express his/her innocence at the first opportune time.[15] Ganzan's silence and non-participation in the present administrative proceedings, despite due notice and directives of this Court for her to submit documents in her defense, i.e., a written explanation, an accounting, and missing receipts, strongly indicate her guilt. Moreover, the failure of a public officer to remit funds, upon demand by an authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that the public officer has put such missing funds or property to personal use.[16] In the total absence of rebutting or contrary evidence, then the Court can only conclude that Ganzan has misappropriated the unaccounted/unremitted court funds in her care and custody.

AM No. P-09-2598

2009-02-12

REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN MCTC-MADDELA

PER CURIAM

Delayed remittance of cash collections by Clerks of Court and cash clerks constitutes gross neglect of duty.[4] The failure of a public officer to remit funds upon demand by an authorized officer shall be prima facie evidence that the public officer has put such missing funds or property to personal use.[5]

AM No. P-04-1807

2008-12-23

TERESITA RETAZO v. LORNA A. VERDON

PER CURIAM

In Navallo v. Sandiganbayan,[15] we held that an accountable officer may be convicted of malversation even in the absence of direct proof of misappropriation as long as there is evidence of shortage in his accounts which he is unable to explain. We also reiterate that public service requires the utmost integrity and strictest discipline. Thus, a public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity. No less than the Constitution declares that a public office is a public trust, and enjoins all public officers and employees to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.[16] Those involved in the administration of justice must live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity in public service for the image of a court is mirrored in the conduct of the men and women who comprise it, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel.[17]

AM No. P-04-1820

2008-08-06

OCA v. CLARITA QUINTANA-MALANAY

PER CURIAM

This Court has in fact accorded leniency to respondent Malanay. For over four years now, she failed to fully comply with several Court directives to submit all financial documents as well as case records regarding the court's funds in order to determine her exact accountability and to restitute the unremitted funds. Neither did she offer any satisfactory explanation justifying her non-compliance. Failure of a public officer to remit funds upon demand by an authorized officer constitutes prima facie evidence that the public officer has put such missing fund or property to personal use.[47]

AM NO. P-06-2140

2006-06-26

RE: REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN MTCC-OCC

PER CURIAM

Time and again, we have reminded court personnel tasked with collections of court funds, such as Clerks of Courts and cash clerks, to deposit immediately with authorized government depositories the various funds they have collected because they are not authorized to keep funds in their custody.[13] Respondent, as cash clerk, is responsible to deposit immediately with the authorized depositories, in this case, LBP, because delayed remittance of cash collections constitutes gross neglect of duty.[14] Failure of a public officer to remit funds upon demand by an authorized officer constitutes prima facie evidence that the public officer has put such missing funds or property to personal use.[15]

AM NO. P-00-1372

2005-05-16

ANTONINA A. SORIA v. CLERK OF COURT SALVADOR P. OLIVEROS

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Time and again, we have reminded court personnel tasked with collections of court funds, such as Clerks of Courts and cash clerks, to deposit immediately with authorized government depositories the various funds they have collected because they are not authorized to keep funds in their custody.[32] Delayed remittance of cash collections constitutes gross neglect of duty.[33]

	AM No. P-10-2840 2015-06-23	OCA v. MS. FLORED L. NICOLAS PER CURIAM
Failure of a public officer, Nicolas in this case, to remit funds upon demand by an authorized officer constitutes prima facie evidence that the public officer has put such missing funds or property to personal use.[28] Without Nicolas' explanation as to the non-remittance of court collections while she was the accountable officer, the prima facie presumption stands.
	AM No. P-10-2800 2014-11-18	OCA v. MRS. AURORA T. ZUÑIGA PER CURIAM
Indeed, a public servant is expected to exhibit, at all times, the highest degree of honesty and integrity, and should be made accountable to all those whom he serves. There is no place in the Judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.[49]
	AM No. P-09-2647 2012-07-17	OCA v. LUNALINDA M. PERADILLA PER CURIAM
Section 1, Article XI of the Constitution declares that a public office is a public trust, and all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. The demand for moral uprightness is more pronounced for the members and personnel of the judiciary who are involved in the dispensation of justice. The conduct of court members and personnel must not only be characterized with propriety and decorum but must also be above suspicion,[10] for any act of impropriety can seriously erode or diminish the people's confidence in the judiciary.[11] As frontliners in the administration of justice, they should live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the public service.[12]
	AM No. P-07-2364 2011-01-25	REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED ON BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SONIA L. DY v. ATTY. GRACIANO D. CUANICO PER CURIAM
Those charged with the dispensation of justice, from the justices and judges to the lowliest clerks, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.[39] A public servant is expected to exhibit, at all times, the highest degree of honesty and integrity, and should be made accountable to all those whom he serves. There is no place in the judiciary for those who cannot meet the exacting standards of judicial conduct and integrity.[40]
	AM No. P-05-2046 2009-09-17	OCA v. CLERK OF COURT FE P. GANZAN PER CURIAM
Ganzan's refusal to face head-on the charges against her is contrary to the principle that the first impulse of an innocent person, when accused of wrongdoing, is to express his/her innocence at the first opportune time.[15] Ganzan's silence and non-participation in the present administrative proceedings, despite due notice and directives of this Court for her to submit documents in her defense, i.e., a written explanation, an accounting, and missing receipts, strongly indicate her guilt. Moreover, the failure of a public officer to remit funds, upon demand by an authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that the public officer has put such missing funds or property to personal use.[16] In the total absence of rebutting or contrary evidence, then the Court can only conclude that Ganzan has misappropriated the unaccounted/unremitted court funds in her care and custody.
	AM No. P-09-2598 2009-02-12	REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN MCTC-MADDELA PER CURIAM
Delayed remittance of cash collections by Clerks of Court and cash clerks constitutes gross neglect of duty.[4] The failure of a public officer to remit funds upon demand by an authorized officer shall be prima facie evidence that the public officer has put such missing funds or property to personal use.[5]
	AM No. P-04-1807 2008-12-23	TERESITA RETAZO v. LORNA A. VERDON PER CURIAM
In Navallo v. Sandiganbayan,[15] we held that an accountable officer may be convicted of malversation even in the absence of direct proof of misappropriation as long as there is evidence of shortage in his accounts which he is unable to explain. We also reiterate that public service requires the utmost integrity and strictest discipline. Thus, a public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity. No less than the Constitution declares that a public office is a public trust, and enjoins all public officers and employees to serve with the highest degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.[16] Those involved in the administration of justice must live up to the strictest standard of honesty and integrity in public service for the image of a court is mirrored in the conduct of the men and women who comprise it, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel.[17]
	AM No. P-04-1820 2008-08-06	OCA v. CLARITA QUINTANA-MALANAY PER CURIAM
This Court has in fact accorded leniency to respondent Malanay. For over four years now, she failed to fully comply with several Court directives to submit all financial documents as well as case records regarding the court's funds in order to determine her exact accountability and to restitute the unremitted funds. Neither did she offer any satisfactory explanation justifying her non-compliance. Failure of a public officer to remit funds upon demand by an authorized officer constitutes prima facie evidence that the public officer has put such missing fund or property to personal use.[47]
	AM NO. P-06-2140 2006-06-26	RE: REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN MTCC-OCC PER CURIAM
Time and again, we have reminded court personnel tasked with collections of court funds, such as Clerks of Courts and cash clerks, to deposit immediately with authorized government depositories the various funds they have collected because they are not authorized to keep funds in their custody.[13] Respondent, as cash clerk, is responsible to deposit immediately with the authorized depositories, in this case, LBP, because delayed remittance of cash collections constitutes gross neglect of duty.[14] Failure of a public officer to remit funds upon demand by an authorized officer constitutes prima facie evidence that the public officer has put such missing funds or property to personal use.[15]
	AM NO. P-00-1372 2005-05-16	ANTONINA A. SORIA v. CLERK OF COURT SALVADOR P. OLIVEROS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Time and again, we have reminded court personnel tasked with collections of court funds, such as Clerks of Courts and cash clerks, to deposit immediately with authorized government depositories the various funds they have collected because they are not authorized to keep funds in their custody.[32] Delayed remittance of cash collections constitutes gross neglect of duty.[33]

OCA v. EDILTRUDES A. BESA