A.M. No. MTJ-94-949 - Office of the Court Administrator vs. Del Rosario

A letter dated June 10, 1992, addressed to the Hon. Ernani Cruz Pano, Court Administrator, referred to a prior letter dated January 10, 1992, from Mr. Jose C. Cabarles, Provincial Auditor, Commission on Audit (COA), San Jose, Antique.
The examination conducted on October 1, 1991, revealed that one piece of official receipt (General Form 13-A, Serial No. 9797272) was missing from the cash and accounts of Atty. Deogracias K. del Rosario, then Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, San Jose, Antique.
The missing receipt was among the accountable forms that had been issued by the Property Division, Supreme Court (issued in specific serial number series on January 8, 1987 and May 19, 1988).

The latest reports of collections and deposits in the subsidiary ledger for the General Fund and Fiduciary accounts dated back to May 1989 and December 1988, respectively.
Incomplete reporting for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) with records existing only as recent as July 1991.
Only the Sheriff Fund's reports were regularly submitted.

These discrepancies underlined the deficiencies in maintaining required documentation and timely reporting of collections and deposits.

A memorandum dated June 17, 1992, from Mrs. Antonina A. Soria, Director III, Field Audit Division, requested that respondent settle his accountabilities before assuming his new position as Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge in Patnongon-Valderama, Antique.
Despite follow-up memoranda and directives issued in June 1993, July 1992, and September 1993 by various deputy court administrators, respondent persistently failed to produce the missing form or provide an explanation.
Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis had earlier recommended imposing a fine (initially P1,000.00) along with an order to submit all pertinent documents relative to his accountabilities.

The Office of the Court Administrator, following an En Banc resolution dated April 14, 1994, filed formal charges against respondent for:

The disappearance of one piece of Official Receipt (General Form 13-A, SN 9797272) under his custody.
His failure to produce the missing receipt for COA verification or to initiate a “Notice of Loss” or “Circular” to prevent fraudulent use.
The irregularity and non-submission of the mandatory monthly reports for the Fiduciary, General, Sheriff, and Judiciary Development Funds, as verified by the COA.

The Office of the Court Administrator voiced grave concern regarding respondent’s cavalier attitude in addressing repeated communications and directives directed at clearing up his accountabilities.

In his July 22, 1994 comment, respondent maintained his clear conscience, asserting:

That his attendance at a Seminar for Judges should have served as clearance of his previous accountabilities.
That he assumed office without a formal turnover from his predecessor, which led to “loose ends” such as missing documents.
That external factors, including office ransacking in 1988 and personnel inefficiency, contributed to the irregularities in the records.

He also contended that his explanation sent to the Provincial Auditor was sufficient to comply with the COA requirements and that his family commitments should not preclude him from receiving due compensation as a judge.

A memorandum dated October 24, 1994, described respondent’s explanations as self-serving and inadequate.
The memorandum reiterated prior recommendations for holding him liable for gross misconduct and/or negligence and for imposing a fine, originally recommended at P10,000.00, with the directive to furnish all pertinent accountability-related documents within fifteen days.

Whether respondent Deogracias K. del Rosario’s failure to produce the missing official receipt and irregularity in submitting the required periodic reports constitutes gross misconduct and/or negligence.

The lapse in maintaining accountable forms and the absence of proper documentation, when required by both the Court’s directives and COA regulations, is at the core of the issue.
Whether his repeated non-compliance with internal communications and mandates amounted to a dereliction of duty.

The adequacy of the sanctions imposed relative to the alleged administrative lapses.

The appropriateness of imposing a fine, and the proper quantum thereof, given that no direct governmental damage was established from the missing receipt.
Determining if a reduction of the recommended fine (from P10,000.00 to a lower amount) is warranted, considering the circumstances presented.

The validity of respondent’s defenses, including reliance on seminar attendance as a clearance measure, and the claims of a flawed turnover process and office irregularities.

Assessing whether respondent’s explanations sufficiently justify his actions or non-actions regarding his accountability as the Clerk of Court.
Evaluating the relevance of external factors such as the reported ransacking and personnel inefficiency in mitigating his responsibility.