Facts:

The case involves Rosa A. Acampado, who served as Clerk of Court II at the Municipal Trial Court in Taft, Eastern Samar. The administrative cases against her were consolidated under A.M. Nos. P-13-3116 and P-13-3112, with the resolution issued on November 12, 2013. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) filed complaints against Acampado for failing to submit required documents for financial audits, failing to remit court collections on time, and submitting falsified bank deposit slips. The issues arose after a financial audit revealed significant cash shortages amounting to P100,478.33, attributed to Acampado's failure to turn over collections and her tampering with bank deposit slips. Despite multiple warnings from the OCA, Acampado did not comply with directives to submit necessary documents, leading to the withholding of her salaries and allowances. An investigation was conducted, and Acampado admitted to under-remitting funds and falsifying documents, claiming th...

Facts:

1. Background of the Case
   The case involves two consolidated administrative complaints against Ms. Rosa A. Acampado, Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Taft, Eastern Samar. The complaints stem from her failure to submit required financial documents, failure to remit court collections on time, and falsification of bank deposit slips.

2. Failure to Submit Documents
   In A.M. No. P-13-3116, Acampado failed to submit additional documents required for a financial audit despite repeated warnings and follow-up communications from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). As a result, her salaries and allowances were withheld starting December 12, 2007, until compliance was made.

3. Financial Audit Findings
   In A.M. No. P-13-3112, a financial audit revealed that Acampado incurred cash shortages totaling P100,478.33. She was found to have falsified bank deposit slips and tampered with official receipts to cover up unreported collections. The audit team concluded that she committed gross neglect of duty, gross dishonesty, and malversation of public funds.

4. Respondent’s Defense
   Acampado admitted to under-remitting funds and falsifying deposit slips, attributing her actions to financial difficulties caused by her husband’s medical expenses. She claimed that the shortages were used for her husband’s insulin and dialysis treatments. She also stated that some documents were damaged by water during a fire incident.

5. Investigating Judge’s Findings
   Judge Renato Noel C. Echague, who investigated the case, found Acampado guilty of gross misconduct, gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and falsification of public documents. He recommended fines and penalties but considered mitigating factors such as her admission of guilt, remorse, length of service, and lack of prior administrative cases.

6. Office of the Court Administrator’s Recommendations
   The OCA adopted Judge Echague’s findings but modified the recommended penalties. It proposed fines for simple neglect of duty and gross misconduct but recommended dismissal from service for dishonesty and falsification of public documents. The OCA also considered mitigating circumstances, including Acampado’s long service and first-time offense.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Gross Neglect of Duty and Grave Misconduct
   Clerks of Court are custodians of court funds and are responsible for their proper handling. Acampado’s failure to remit collections on time and her misappropriation of funds constitute gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct, which are grave offenses punishable by dismissal.

2. Serious Dishonesty
   Dishonesty, especially involving falsification of public documents and misappropriation of funds, is a grave offense that warrants dismissal from service. Restitution of the missing amounts does not absolve Acampado of liability.

3. Mitigating Circumstances
   While the OCA considered mitigating factors such as Acampado’s admission of guilt, remorse, and long service, the Supreme Court ruled that these factors do not outweigh the gravity of her offenses. The Court emphasized that court personnel must uphold the highest standards of integrity and accountability.

4. Penalty for Simple Neglect of Duty
   For simple neglect of duty, the Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00, consistent with previous rulings on similar offenses.

5. Dismissal as the Proper Penalty
   The Court reiterated that dismissal is the appropriate penalty for grave offenses such as gross misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and serious dishonesty. This penalty serves to maintain public trust in the Judiciary and deter similar misconduct.