Title
IN RE: Penaflor Jr.
Case
A.M. No. P-07-2339
Decision Date
Aug 20, 2008
Clerk of Court Atty. Peñaflor failed to submit required financial reports despite notices, citing health issues; fined for simple neglect, salaries released post-compliance.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. P-07-2339)

Facts:

Background and Notices

  • Atty. Jacinto B. Peñaflor, Jr., Clerk of Court VI of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), San Jose, Camarines Sur, failed to submit the required Monthly Reports of Collections, Deposits, and Withdrawals.
  • Two notices were sent to Atty. Peñaflor by Ms. Hedelina F. Alcaraz, Supreme Court (SC) Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Accounting Division, Financial Management Office (FMO), Office of the Court Administrator (OCA):
    1. First Notice: May 18, 2004.
    2. Second Notice: July 21, 2004.
  • The notices directed Atty. Peñaflor to submit monthly reports for various funds, including the Sheriff's Trust Fund, Fiduciary Fund, General Fund, Sheriff's General Fund, and Special Allowance for Justices & Judges, covering specific periods from 1999 to 2004.

Withholding of Salaries

  • Due to Atty. Peñaflor's failure to comply, the OCA requested the Supreme Court to withhold his salaries pending compliance, pursuant to Section 122 of Presidential Decree 1445.
  • The Court approved the request on August 6, 2004, and Atty. Peñaflor's salaries were withheld starting September 2004.

Subsequent Reminders and Non-Compliance

  • On January 11, 2005, Atty. Peñaflor was again directed to submit the required reports but still failed to comply.
  • On May 19, 2005, Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño required Atty. Peñaflor to show cause within five days why no disciplinary sanctions should be imposed for gross neglect of duty, incompetence, and conduct prejudicial to the service. Atty. Peñaflor failed to submit his explanation.
  • On October 25, 2006, Atty. Peñaflor was reminded again to submit the reports, but no compliance was received.

Atty. Peñaflor's Explanation

  • On June 13, 2007, Atty. Peñaflor submitted a letter explaining that he suffered a stroke in September 2004, which prevented him from reporting to work for over a month and delayed the submission of the reports.
  • He claimed that his books of accounts were audited on March 19, 2007, and he was ordered to deposit all amounts collected within 24 hours, which he complied with.
  • He also stated that he had submitted all required monthly reports by May 4, 2007, and appealed for the release of his withheld salaries.

Audit Findings

  • An audit team conducted a financial audit from March 16 to 19, 22, and 25, 2004, covering the period from January 1, 1983, to February 2004.
  • The audit revealed that Atty. Peñaflor failed to timely submit monthly and quarterly reports of collections.
  • Some of the reports required were for periods when Atty. Peñaflor was not yet the accountable officer, as they corresponded to the term of his predecessor, Atty. Evelyn R. Rivera.

OCA's Recommendation

  • The OCA found Atty. Peñaflor liable for simple neglect of duty and recommended a fine of P5,000.00, considering it was his first administrative offense.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Duty of Clerks of Court: Clerks of court are vital to the administration of justice. They are responsible for safeguarding court funds, records, and property, and must ensure the timely submission of required reports. Their role demands competence, honesty, and probity.
  2. Simple Neglect of Duty: Atty. Peñaflor's failure to submit the required reports, despite repeated notices and reminders, constitutes simple neglect of duty. His health condition, while unfortunate, does not absolve him of his administrative responsibilities.
  3. Withholding of Salaries: The withholding of salaries was a legitimate measure to compel compliance with administrative requirements. However, once compliance was achieved, the release of withheld salaries was justified.
  4. Mitigating Circumstance: The Court considered Atty. Peñaflor's health condition and eventual compliance as mitigating factors, leading to the imposition of a lighter penalty (P5,000.00 fine) instead of a more severe sanction.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.