FACTS:

The audit team that conducted an on the spot audit examination and reconciliation of the book of accounts of the Municipal Trial Court of Pulilan, Bulacan on August 13 – 17, 2001 reported that Mr. Tomas F. Ocampo and Mr. Arturo S. Batongbacal, both Clerk of Court II had shortages in their collections in the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and Clerk of Court General Fund (CCGF).

Former Clerk of Court Tomas E. Ocampo, who had earlier resigned from the service by reason of illness, complied by paying the shortages in the JDF and CCGF on March 13, 2002. Upon the recommendation of OCA, this administrative matter insofar as Ocampo is concerned was considered closed and terminated in the Resolution of December 9, 2002.

Based on the aforesaid report of the auditing team and upon the recommendation of the OCA, the Court issued a Resolution dated January 14, 2003. In compliance with said Resolution, Batongbacal, on February 15, 2002, in his letter-explanation, related in details his predicament as to why he failed to follow the circulars in the manner of handling judiciary funds which he attributed to overwork and lack of manpower. He likewise averred that there was no formal turnover effected by the former clerk of court and that there was no efficient recording system aggravated by the problem of termites and rodents which destroyed some documents filed in court.

As to directive for him to restitute the unremitted funds, he states that he is unable to restitute the unremitted funds because he used these funds in reimbursing litigants of their cash bonds so he will not be keeping a lot of cash in his table considering that the MTC of Pulilan, Bulacan, then, had no vault or protective storage for such amount. Further, he claims that he had remitted P69,000.00 through "bank transfer" but was not credited in the record of the remittances.

In a Memorandum dated March 30, 2004, the OCA recommended that Batongbacal be suspended; restitute the shortage; submit to the Fiscal Monitoring Division and account the records of his collections to establish his accountabilities for Fiduciary Fund; and directed to comply with the said resolution dated January 14, 2002 within twenty (20) days from notice. The Court finds the explanation of Mr. Batongbacal to be without merit.

RULINGS:

The SC finds Clerk of Court II Arturo S. Batongbacal GUILTY of gross dishonesty, gross misconduct and malversation of public funds while in office. He is ordered DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of his withheld salaries, the same to be applied to his accountabilities. He is further disqualified from re-employment in any branch of the government or in any GOCCs.

There is no doubt that Batongbacal had been remiss in the performance of his duties as clerk of court with regard to financial concerns. He failed to remit his funds on time; he did not regularly submit his reports; and did not record his cash transactions in the cashbook.

Clerks of courts have always been reminded of their duty to immediately deposit the various funds received by them to the authorized depository banks. The Court has issued several circulars regarding court funds. Batongbacal’s responsibility of remitting the various court funds started from August 1, 1999. Therefore, he must be fully aware of these circulars for they are already extant when he assumed office. Neither can he proffer as an excuse overwork and lack of manpower or any other pretext.

It was proper on the part of the auditing team not to have credited his alleged remittance of P69,000.00 through "bank transfer" considering that he has not produced any document like a bank certification confirming said deposit that would prove the same. He did not even mention the name of the bank.

Clerk of courts are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts. They must show competence, honesty and probity since they are charged with safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings. They are judicial officers entrusted to perform delicate functions with regard to the collection of fees and are expected to correctly and effectively implement regulations such that even undue delay in the remittances of amounts collected by them at the very least constitutes misfeasance. They are the custodian of the court’s funds and revenues, records, property and premises. Being the custodian thereof, the clerks of court are liable for any loss, shortages, destruction or impairment of said funds and property.