A.M. No. P-12-3092 (Formerly A.M. No. 12-7-54-MTC) - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. REMEDIOS R. VIESCA, CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF SAN ANTONIO, NUEVA ECIJA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, recommended her immediate dismissal from service, with ( a ) forfeiture of retirement benefits except accrued leave credits, and ( b ) perpetual disqualification in government service including government-owned and controlled corporations. [18] The OCA found that contrary to Viesca's claim that Hernandez used the unremitted collections for her cancer treatments, audit records show that the bulk of the unremitted collections was incurred during the period from 2005 to 2011, or even after Hernandez's demise on April 24, 2006. Hence, the OCA concluded that Viesca should be held primarily liable for gross neglect of duty for violating the strict mandate of Court-issued circulars on the timely deposits of judiciary collections. [19] Finally, the OCA did not give credence to Viesca's assertion that while she indeed committed a delay in the remittance of her judiciary collections, she never misappropriated any amount thereof, holding that her mere failure to remit the same on time already constitutes prima facie evidence that she appropriated such collections for her personal gains. [20] The Issue Before the Court The essential issue in this case is whether or not Viesca should be held administratively liable for Gross Neglect of Duty and Grave Misconduct. The Court's Ruling The Court concurs with the OCA's findings and recommendation, with the modification holding Viesca also administratively liable for Serious Dishonesty. Clerks of Court - like Viesca - are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts; with regard to the collection of legal fees, they perform a delicate function as judicial officers entrusted with the correct and effective implementation of regulations thereon. Even the undue delay in the remittances of amounts collected by them at the very least constitutes misfeasance. [21] As custodians of court funds and revenues, Clerks of Court have the duty to immediately deposit the various funds received by them to the authorized government depositories for they are not supposed to keep funds in their custody. [22] Such functions are highlighted by OCA Circular Nos. 50-95 [23] and 113-2004 [24] and Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 [25] which mandate Clerks of Court to timely deposit judiciary collections as well as to submit monthly financial reports on the same. In this regard, jurisprudence in OCA v. Acampado [26] provides that the failure of Clerks of Court to perform the aforementioned duties exposes them to administrative liability for Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct, and also Serious Dishonesty, if it is shown that there was misappropriation of such collections, viz .: Clerks of Court are the custodians of the courts' "funds and revenues, records, properties, and premises." They are "liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment" of those entrusted to them. Any shortages in the amounts to be remitted and the delay in the actual remittance "constitute gross neglect of duty for which the