Facts:

This administrative case revolves around Eladia T. Cunting, Clerk of Court IV, and Marie Gay B. Naranjo, Clerk III, both serving in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities-Office of the Clerk of Court in Zamboanga City. On July 26, 2007, the Supreme Court of the Philippines issued a decision in response to multiple sworn complaints filed by complainants Maricis A. Alenio, Edison F. Amper, Nestor M. Appari, Lily de la Cruz, and Perigrino M. Macrohon, accusing the respondents of gross misconduct, dishonesty, and violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act No. 3019). The complaints stemmed from issues concerning cash bail bonds. Each complainant had deposited their respective bail amounts with the Office of the Clerk of Court, and upon request for return following the dismissal of their cases, were informed that the cash bonds had not been deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines. The complainants suspected that the funds were pocketed by the respondents

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• The case is an administrative proceeding filed against Eladia T. Cunting (Clerk of Court IV) and Marie Gay B. Naranjo (Clerk III) of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities-Office of the Clerk of Court, Zamboanga City.
• The complainants are Maricis A. Alenio, Edison F. Amper, Nestor M. Appari, Lily dela Cruz, and Perigrino M. Macrohon.
• The charges include gross misconduct, dishonesty, and violation of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).

Complaints and Allegations

• Multiple sworn complaints were filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) concerning various criminal cases, each involving the posting of cash bail bonds by the complainants.
• Maricis A. Alenio’s complaint (29 September 2003) regarding a criminal case for violation of P.D. No. 1602 with a cash bail bond of P10,000.00.
• Edison F. Amper’s complaint (24 October 2003) concerning Grave Threats with a posted bail bond of P6,000.00.
• Nestor M. Appari’s complaint (16 December 2003) regarding Slight Physical Injuries with a bond of P2,000.00.
• Lily dela Cruz’s complaint (19 February 2004) for Grave Slander with a bail bond of P4,500.00.
• Perigrino M. Macrohon’s complaint (29 March 2004) involving Theft with a bond of P7,500.00.
• The complainants allege that after the termination or dismissal of their respective criminal cases, when they requested the return of their posted bail bonds, they were informed that the bonds were not deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines as required.
• Based on this procedural lapse, the complainants contended that the funds may have been misappropriated or pocketed by the personnel responsible for their custody.

Respondents’ Actions and Responses

• Respondent Cunting (Clerk of Court IV)
• In her Letter-Comment dated 7 June 2004, she denied the allegation that she or any employee pocketed the cash bail bonds, asserting that her version of events was supported by precedents and absence of factual basis in the charges.
• Narrated the sequence of events including her official travel, the intervention by the Executive Judge with regard to the audit, and her subsequent temporary relief from duty following instructions from the Supreme Court.
• Claimed that discrepancies in the financial documents were brought to her attention by the resident auditor even before the audit, and that the delay in accounting for the funds was due to the absence of pertinent financial documents.
• Accused the complainants of basing their charges on hearsay and the unsubstantiated allegations of ill-motivated employees.
• Respondent Naranjo (Clerk III)
• In her Comment-Answer dated 18 May 2004, expressed surprise at receiving the complaint given her established reputation for honesty and efficiency.
• Asserted that she merely followed standard procedures by receiving the cash bail bonds, issuing official receipts, and then turning them over to respondent Cunting for further action.
• Specifically denied any misappropriation or mishandling of funds.

Administrative Proceedings and Developments

• The OCA, in its 1st Indorsement dated 21 April 2004, required the respondents to file their comments regarding the allegations.
• The OCA compiled the antecedent circumstances, summarizing the chain of complaints, the handling of the cash bail bonds, and the subsequent failure of the funds to be returned to the complainants.
• On 4 February 2005, the OCA submitted its Evaluation Report, highlighting:
• Respondent Cunting’s failure to deny key facts such as the receipt of the cash bail bonds without a corresponding proper deposit in the designated bank.
• Her omission to return the funds on demand, which was interpreted as prima facie evidence of misappropriation.
• A clear violation of the Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 requiring immediate deposit of fiduciary collections.
• The OCA’s recommendation concluded that:
• Respondent Cunting should be dismissed from service with forfeiture of benefits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or agency.
• The complaint against respondent Naranjo be dismissed due to lack of merit.
• Subsequent court resolutions included:
• Redocketing of the case as a regular administrative matter on 9 March 2005.
• Various orders for submission of manifestations by the parties, some of which were complied with (e.g., respondent Naranjo’s compliance on 26 April 2005 and complainant Macrohon’s manifestation on 24 October 2005) while others (complainants Alenio, Amper, Appari, dela Cruz and respondent Cunting) were treated as waiving compliance due to non-manifestation.

Issue:

Whether the respondents—specifically respondent Cunting—committed administrative offenses amounting to gross misconduct and dishonesty by failing to promptly deposit and return the cash bail bonds.

• Does the failure to deposit the funds in the authorized depository constitute a breach of the established duty of a clerk of court?
• Can the handling and alleged misappropriation of funds be considered sufficient to sustain a charge of gross misconduct and dishonesty?

Whether respondent Cunting’s failure to account for the cash bail bonds upon the complainants’ demand amounts to a dereliction of duty that undermines public trust in the judicial system.

• Evaluate if the delay and non-deposit of funds are prima facie evidence of misappropriation.
• Consider if her explanation for not being aware of the complainants’ claims and her absence during the audit relieves her of accountability.

Whether the actions of respondent Naranjo, who simply processed the receipt and turnover of funds, merit any disciplinary action.

• Analyze if following standard operating procedures exonerates her from liability regarding the mismanagement of the funds.

• Whether procedural irregularities in the administrative process, including delayed compliance and lack of proper manifestation by some parties, affected the final resolution of the case.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)