A.M. No. 02-10-598-RTC

Ruling

Accordingly, the OCA recommended that she suffer the penalty of one-month suspension without pay, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act in the future would be dealt with more severely. [8] This Courts Ruling We agree with the OCAs findings but modify the penalty, consistent with jurisprudence. Administrative Liability of Respondent Time and time again, we have stressed that the behavior of all employees and officials involved in the administration of justice, from the judge to the most junior clerk, is circumscribed with a heavy responsibility. [9] Their conduct must be guided by strict propriety and decorum at all times, in order to merit and maintain the publics respect for and trust in the judiciary. [10] The failure of Odtuhan to remit her collection within 24 hours from receipt thereof was unjustifiable. In her August 3, 2001 reply [11] to Atty. Rilleras letter, she admitted that she had kept the collection inadvertently. She added that she had no intention of keeping it for herself and was ready to remit it immediately. Yet, after taking custody of the collection on January 1, 1999, she let more than three years elapse before finally remitting it, and only after she had received two Notices [12] from the clerks of court of the RTC of Pasay City. Thereafter, in a Memorandum [13] dated May 2, 2002, the OCA ordered her to explain why no administrative sanctions should be imposed upon her. In her Reply [14] dated June 25, 2002, she averred that she failed to remit the collection within the deadline, because she was suffering from cancer and was having a difficult relationship with her presiding judge. We find her explanation inadequate and inconsistent, because it contradicted her earlier inaction. Though we empathize with her battle with cancer, we cannot ignore her culpable act, which was unrelated to her illness. Paragraph B (4) of Circular No. 50-95 provides that collections from bail bonds, rental deposits, and other fiduciary collections shall be deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines by the clerk of court concerned, within 24 hours upon receipt thereof. We have held in Mallare v. Ferry [15] that unjustifiable delay in remitting collections constitutes grave misfeasance, if not malversation of funds. Likewise, Lirios v. Oliveros [16] and Re: Report on Audit and Physical Inventory of the Records of Cases in MTC of Peñaranda, Nueva Ecija [17] held that the unreasonable delay in the remittance of fiduciary funds constituted serious misconduct. No protestation of good faith can override the mandatory nature of the circulars designed to promote full accountability for government funds. [18] The failure of Odtuhan, while acting as branch clerk of court, to remit her collection within 24 hours from receipt thereof constituted a serious breach of duty. Even more culpable was her failure to remit it immediately after receiving notice of her infraction from the clerks of court of the RTC of Pasay City. S