A.M. No. P-06-2221 (FORMERLY A.M. NO. 06-7-215-MTCC) - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. RODELIO E. MARCELO AND MA. CORAZON D. ESPAÑOLA, MTCC, SAN JOSE DEL MONTE CITY, BULACAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it recommended that: (1) Marcelo be found guilty of grave misconduct, dishonesty and gross neglect of duty, and be dismissed from the service; (2) Marcelo's retirement and/or separation benefits be forfeited, except accrued leave credits, and that he be disqualified from re-employment in the government; (3) Marcelo be directed to pay P792,213.00; (4) the OCA be directed to process Marcelo's terminal leave pay, dispensing with the usual documentary requirements, and to apply the proceeds to the shortages; (5) the matter be referred to the Office of the Ombudsman for proper action; and (6) Española be warned that the commission of any similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. THE COURT'S RULING Without doubt, Marcelo deserves to be sanctioned for the grave transgressions he committed while in office. As clerk of court, he was in charge of the court's funds and was responsible for their collection and safekeeping. He was an accountable officer, a position which carries a degree of trust of the highest order, [12] as Judge Capellan aptly noted. Marcelo violated that trust several times over for a period covering more than two years. He made collections for the court's several funds (JDF, Fiduciary Fund, General Fund, Special Allowance for the Judiciary, between March 5, 2002 and December 31, 2004) and never bothered to deposit these collections in the official court depository bank, the Land Bank of the Philippines ( LBP ) - 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. [13] Marcelo also held on to his collections, thus committing another violation. Clerks of court may not keep funds in their custody. [14] When he could not make the deposit anymore because he was no longer the authorized signatory, he handed - upon the advice of his mother - the collections to a member of his mother's staff who allegedly kept the funds in the vault of the City Prosecutor's Office. This action, if true, however, made matters worse; it was a classic case of "righting a wrong with another wrong." Again, as Judge Capellan noted, Marcelo's mother/counsel is not the court's depository bank. Oddly, Marcelo likewise failed to collect the marriage solemnization fees for 48 marriages, for which he is also accountable. His accountability totaled P792,213.00. Marcelo tried to explain away his failure to deposit his collections with the claim that he had a heart condition and had threats to his life and to those of the members of his family. [15] Judge Capellan, however, correctly observed that "[N]o amount of explanation can hide the fact that respondent Marcelo for so many years had at his disposal the huge amount of money which if deposited in the bank could have redounded to the benefit of the government. Malversation of these funds was not therefore remote. It cannot be discounted that respondent benefited from it." [16] The OCA audit t