A.M. No. P-09-2649 [Formerly A.M. No. 09-5-219-RTC] - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. EDUARDO T. UMBLAS, LEGAL RESEARCHER, AND ATTY. RIZALINA G. BALTAZAR­AQUINO, CLERK OF COURT IV, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, BALLESTEROS CAGAYAN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-

Ruling

Accordingly, the Court ordered the OCA to furnish Atty. Baltazar­ Aquino with the detailed list of the tampered official receipts, copies of acknowledgement receipts she issued in lieu of official receipts, and the detailed accounting of all funds audited and the corresponding shortages. [12] Despite this, Atty. Baltazar-Aquino repeatedly failed to submit her written explanation. As such, she was fined twice for such failure, and was even warned of being arrested should she fail to comply with the directives of the Court. [13] Finally, Atty. Baltazar-Aquino submitted a Compliance [14] dated April 14, 2014 voluntarily and unconditionally admitting to be the author of and thus, guilty of the falsifications, tampering, erasures, and shortages of funds imputed against her. In this regard, she expressed remorse over her actions, expressed willingness to return her incurred shortages, and pleaded for the Court to exercise some degree of compassion and mercy towards her. [15] On the other hand, Umblas requested for additional periods to file his written explanation, but despite the periods given him, he never did so, and thus, was fined twice for such omission. [16] The OCA's Report and Recommendation In a Memorandum [17] dated May 5, 2016, the OCA recommended that: ( a ) respondents be found guilty of Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Gross Neglect of Duty, and accordingly, be meted the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of all retirement benefits excluding leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any government office, including government-owned and controlled corporations; ( b ) Atty. Baltazar-Aquino be made to explain why she should not be disbarred for violations of Canons 1 and 7 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility; ( c ) the Leave Division of the Office of Administrative Services, OCA be directed to compute each of respondents' accrued leave credits; ( d ) the Financial Management Office, OCA be directed to apply the monetary value of respondents' leave credits to their respective cash shortages, and should the same prove to be insufficient, to order respondents to restitute the balance; and ( e ) the proper criminal charges be filed against respondents. [18] As for Atty. Baltazar-Aquino, the OCA found that her voluntary and unconditional admission to falsifying and tampering various official receipts reveals a serious depravity in her character and integrity which has no place in the judiciary. The OCA added that she disregarded her mandated duty to safeguard court funds, thereby undermining the public's faith in the courts and in the administration of justice as a whole. Moreover, the OCA pointed out that Atty. Baltazar-Aquino did not collect initial sheriff's fees pursuant to Section 10 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court nor issued official receipts for sheriff's fees she received, in violation of the directives contained in Circular Nos. 22-94 and 26-97. With regard to her Fiduciary Fund shortage, the OCA opined