Respondent Egipto incurred a cash shortage in the amount of Ninety-Eight Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Two Pesos and Eighty-One Cents (PHP 98,652.81) per Cash Examination Report dated June 27, 2005 submitted by State Auditor Eleno relative to cash and accounts for the period from October 10, 2003 to February 21, 2005. The respondent was previously sanctioned for the same offense as reported in Financial Audit Report dated January 21, 2004.
On December 12, 2005, the Court, upon recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) resolved to (1) direct respondent to explain in writing within ten (10) days from notice why no disciplinary action shall be taken against him for incurring the cash shortage and for repeating the same offense as reported in the Financial Audit Report, and (2) relieve respondent as Accountable Officer/Collecting Officer pending resolution of this administrative matter.
In writing, respondent admitted having incurred cash shortages as reported by the State Auditor Eleno due to financial difficulties.
On November 2006, the OCA observed that respondent deserved to be administratively sanctioned for failure to remit his collections on time and that such failure to remit constituted gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and grave misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. The OCA also recommended respondent to be dismissed from service with forfeiture of all benefits except his accrued leave benefits and to restitute his cash shortages amounting to PHP 98,652.81. Notably, respondent restituted his shortages totaling PHP 98,652.81 on August 2007 and November 2014.
Issues:
- Whether respondent Crispin Egipto is guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct;
- If in the affirmative, whether above offense warrants his dismissal from public service as Clerk of Court of MTCC-Pagadian City
Ruling:
The Court affirms the OCA recommendation and found respondent guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct.
Clerks of court, being custodians of court funds and revenues, records, properties, and premises, are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of the funds or other assets entrusted to them. Their personal accountability is always enforceable. Specifically, any shortages in the accounts remitted and any delays incurred in the actual remittance of collections shall constitute gross neglect of duty for which the clerks of court concerned shall be administratively liable.
Respondent’s administrative sin was aggravated by the fact that the current charge was not his first offense. He failed to observe SC Circular No. 50-95 by which he was bound to deposit fiduciary collections with the Land Bank of the Philippines within 24 hours from receipt thereof. He also violated Administrative Circular No. 3-2000 which directed respondent to immediately deposit all fiduciary collections upon receipt thereof in an authorized government depository bank.
Misconduct is defined as the transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. It becomes grave when it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence.
Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of any official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.
Dishonesty is defined as intentionally making a false statement in any material fact, or practicing or attempting to practice any deception or fraud in securing his examination, registration, appointment, or promotion. In ascertaining the intention of a person charged with dishonesty, consideration must be taken not only of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the act committed by respondent, but also of his state of mind at the time the offense was committees, the time he might have had at his disposal for the purpose of meditating on the consequences of his act, and the degree of reasoning he could have had at the moment.
With all these in consideration, the Court finds respondent guilty of grave misconduct and dishonesty. Since these offenses are grave offenses, respondent must be dismissed from civil service.
