Facts:

The case involves a complaint filed by Executive Judge Anne Beatrice G. Aguana-Balmaceda of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Iloilo City against Marite E. Peniero, Clerk of Court III, and Salvacion D. Sermonia, Clerk IV, both employees under her supervision in the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC). The complaint stems from a report dated April 1, 2019, where Judge Aguana-Balmaceda disclosed various irregularities in the cash collections at the OCC. The usual procedure required the assigned cashier to turn over daily cash collections to Peniero, who was the Officer-in-Charge, and for these to be submitted to a representative of the Landbank of the Philippines the following morning. However, it was found that a deposit slip prepared on February 8, 2019, in the amount of PHP 50,000 did not carry a "deposited" stamp from the bank, indicating it was not properly handed over according to protocol. Peniero explained that she had l

...

Facts:

Procedural Background

• The complainant, Executive Judge Anne Beatrice G. Aguana-Balmaceda, initiated the investigation following irregularities in the cash collections handled by the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Iloilo City.
• The established procedure required that at the close of business hours, the assigned cashier would turn over the day’s cash collections to Clerk of Court III, respondent Marite E. Peniero, who acted as Officer-in-Charge.
• The following morning, a representative from Landbank of the Philippines would collect the funds and stamp the deposit slips with “deposited,” after which the validated slips were returned to the complainant on the same day.

Discovery of the Irregularity

• On 12 February 2019, the complainant discovered a deposit slip in the amount of ₱50,000.00 that lacked the usual “deposited” stamp and instead bore a bank validation indicating an over-the-counter deposit.
• The irregularity was particularly suspect because the deposit slip related to the cash collection of 08 February 2019, and the funds should have been processed according to the established procedure given that 11 February 2019 was a local holiday.

Explanations and Admissions by Respondents

• In a memorandum dated 14 February 2019, the complainant directed Peniero to explain the deviation.
• Peniero, in her letter dated 18 February 2019, revealed that her co-employee, Clerk IV Salvacion D. Sermonia, had approached her requesting to borrow ₱47,000.00 from the ₱50,000.00 cash collection.
• Peniero lent the money to Sermonia, which delayed the regular turnover process to the Landbank representative.
• Sermonia admitted in letters dated 18 February 2019 and 08 March 2019 that she had borrowed ₱47,000.00 due to an emergency family situation, and she deposited the entire amount (₱47,000.00 plus the remaining ₱3,000.00) directly to Landbank later on the same day.
• Subsequently, on 04 March 2019, Peniero confessed that she also failed to remit ₱54,751.00 on 28 February 2019 because she had borrowed ₱20,000.00 for her own family emergency, later depositing the full amount on 01 March 2019.

Administrative and Legal Actions Initiated

• Alarmed by these deviations, the complainant recommended appropriate administrative and criminal charges and in her report dated 01 April 2019, she also relieved Peniero from her duty as Officer-in-Charge, reassigning her to Branch 2.
• The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Legal Office, through a memorandum dated 03 June 2019, recommended treating the complaint as an administrative matter for Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct and for initiating a range of remedial actions, including a financial audit of the OCC’s books.
• Respondents submitted their comments on 01 April 2020 admitting the acts but contended there was no intent to defraud, attributing their actions to emergency personal needs.

Report and Recommendations by the OCA

• In its December 2020 report, the OCA recommended re-docketing the complaint as a regular administrative case.
• The report found that Peniero had clearly failed in her duty as the custodian of court funds, and that both Peniero and Sermonia used public funds for personal interests, which is strictly prohibited.
• The OCA recommended severe penalties including dismissal for Peniero and forfeiture of retirement benefits for Sermonia, along with perpetual disqualification from any future re-employment in government service.

Summarized Findings

• Both Peniero and Sermonia’s actions were characterized as gross neglect of duty, serious dishonesty, and grave misconduct since they deviated from established procedures to handle and deposit court funds.
• Their rationalizations based on personal emergencies and subsequent deposit of funds were deemed insufficient to mitigate their accountability for the unauthorized use of public funds.

Issue:

Determination of Liability

• Whether the actions of respondents Peniero and Sermonia, specifically the unauthorized use of court funds for personal purposes, constitute gross neglect of duty and serious dishonesty.
• Whether the failure to follow the standard protocol for cash handling and depositing, including the timely turnover to the bank, amounts to grave misconduct under the rules governing public officers.

Adequacy of Respondents’ Explanations

• Whether the explanations provided by Peniero and Sermonia, citing family emergencies and delays in returning borrowed funds, offer a legally acceptable justification for their conduct.
• Whether the subsequent corrective act of depositing the funds negates or diminishes the gravity of their initial misconduct.

Application of Disciplinary Measures

• The extent to which the misconduct, based on the misappropriation and mismanagement of public funds, warrants the imposition of penalties including dismissal, forfeiture of benefits, and perpetual disqualification from government service.
• Whether the administrative and legal precedents support the imposition of the extreme sanctions recommended by the OCA and subsequently adopted by the Court.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)