OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. RODELIO E. MARCELO and MA. CORAZON D. ESPAOLA A.M. No.

P-06-2221 October 5, 2010 PROCEDURE: This case began at the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) after conducting a financial audit on the MTCC books of accounts and found that Marcelo and Espanola incurred shortages in their collections, pertaining to the court's funds. However, Marcelo failed to deposit the amount covering his share of shortages despite the directive ordered by the OCA audit team. The court resolved to report the incident as a regular administrative matter and referred it to Judge Joaquin for investigation.However, Judge Joaquin's investigation was cut short as she inhibited herself from the case upon the motion for inhibition filed by Marcelo's party. Judge Capellan recommended Marcelo's dismissal from public service and that his case be indorsed to the Office of the Ombudsman for proper action on the possible criminal aspect of this matter. Despite Espaola's compliance with the OCA audit team's directive to deposit the amount covering the shortages, such restitution does not fully exonerate her. Thus, she is given the penalty of reprimand as the appropriate penalty. Hence, this administrative matter is resolved in this Decision. FACTS: A financial audit was conducted by the OCA on the MTCC books of accounts from May 1991- April 2005. The June 2006 report of the OCA audit team showed that Marcelo and Espanola incurred shortages in their collections, pertaining to the court's funds. Espanola, a fomer clerk of court/officer-in-charge, complied with the dir ective by depositing the amounts covering the shortages. On August 2006, the court resolved to: 1. docket the audit team's report as a regular administrative matter, 2. direct Marcelo, fomer Clerk of Court, to immediately deposit the amounts covering his share of shortages, 3. direct both Marcelo and Espaola to explain, in writing, their failure to deposit, 4. refer the matter to Judge Joaquin for investigation. In a letter to the MTCC on October 2006, Marcelo strongly denied the charge of malversing/pocketing the court's collections. He claimed that he had been frequently on leave starting late 2003 due to his heart ailment. He admitted though that the collections for the different funds of the MTCC during his incumbency as OIC was not deposited in the LBP because when he was about to deposit them he was informed of the change in authorized signatories. Hence, upon advice of his mother who was a lawyer in the City Prosecutors Office and acted as his counsel, he brought the money to her, who in turn gave them to her secretary who kept the cash in the vault of the City Prosecutors Office. Thereafter all withdrawals/deposits were done through Berts mother/counsel. Bert blamed his poor health for being remiss in the performance of his duties. He entrusted the undeposited court collections to Alconiza, superivisng stenographer, who kept the cash in the vault of the City Prosecutor's Office. But the investigating Judge and the Office of the Court Administrator still found Bert guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty and gross neglect of duty. The Judge ruled that it should not have taken Bert that long to deposit the collections in the bank. LEGAL ISSUE: WON Marcelo derserves to be sanctioned for the grave transgressions he committed while in office. HOLDING: Marcelo deserves to be sanctioned for the grave transgressions he committed while in office. As clerk of court, he was in charge of the courts funds and was responsible for their collection and safekeeping. Marcelo made collections for the courts several funds and never bothered to deposit these collections in the official court depository bank a violation of the rule that all clerks of court are required to deposit all collections with the LBP within twenty-four (24) hours upon receipt of the collections. Marcelo also held on to his collections, thus committing another violation. Clerks of court may not keep funds in their custody. His acts and omissions constitute a betrayal of the trust and confidence the Court reposes on a senior officer.