A.M. No. P-02-1625 - Office of the Court Administrator vs. Pacheco

Case Digest (A.M. No. P-02-1625)
Standard Advanced

Facts:

Background and Initiation of the Audit

The case arose from an audit conducted by the Financial Audit Team, Office of the Court Administrator (FAT-OCA) in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Paete-Pakil-Pangil, Laguna on April 4, 2002.
The audit was prompted by allegations made by Christopher M. Aguilar, Utility Worker I of the court, who claimed that respondent Marina Garcia Pacheco, then Clerk of Court II, tampered with duplicate and triplicate copies of court receipts and failed to issue receipts for collected fines and forfeited bonds.

Findings from the Initial Audit

The initial FAT-OCA report confirmed discrepancies in the triplicate copies of several receipts when compared to the original copies.

Specific examples showed significant differences in payor names and amounts.
The inconsistencies indicated that the data under the payor and amount categories were not truthfully reproduced in the required copies.

Additional irregularities included failure to issue receipts for certain collected fines and forfeited bonds in criminal cases.

Notable cases involved People vs. Viola C. Ferol and People vs. Pedro Rarela, Letty Patana, Abe Galay with specific amounts stated for fines and bonds.

The audit also revealed procedural lapses:

Collections were improperly deposited with the Rural Bank of Paete, Inc. instead of the authorized depository, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP).
A discrepancy was found between the total bank deposits and withdrawals.

Respondent's Defense and Subsequent Actions

In her comment/response dated September 30, 2002, Pacheco explained:

Depositing funds with the Rural Bank was due to its proximity to the MCTC; she claimed to have been informed of LBP as the authorized depository bank only in January 2002.
The delay in transferring funds to LBP until May 25, 2002 was attributed to a heavy workload.

The respondent admitted tampering with receipt copies but alleged that money from the tampered receipts was used for court renovations, asserting that:

The money was not for personal gain; she even used personal funds for renovation expenses.
She claimed to have issued receipts for forfeited cash bonds and fines, supporting her claim with photocopies.

Subsequent Investigations and Re-Examination

Due to insufficient documentation covering the entire period of her incumbency, the Fiscal Management Division (FMD-CMO-OCA) conducted a re-examination on April 21–25, 2008.
The re-examination revealed:

Cash shortages totaling P169,878.58 across various funds (Judiciary Development Fund, Clerk of Court General Fund, and Fiduciary Fund).
Specific computation details:

In the Judiciary Development Fund, an under-remittance of P18,269.00 was noted, with P10,780.00 coming from tampered receipts.

ii. For the Clerk of Court General Fund, an under-remittance of P80.00 was recorded. iii. In the Fiduciary Fund, a cash shortage of P206,529.58 was initially recorded, later reduced to P151,529.58 after a P55,000.00 deposit by Pacheco.

Interviews with MCTC employees indicated:

Renovation expenses were funded from local sources, not from court collections.
Sixteen official receipts allocated for the Fiduciary Fund were missing and unaccounted for.

Administrative Proceedings and Final Developments

On October 20, 2008, the Court directed Pacheco to:

Restitute the shortages in the Judiciary Development Fund, Clerk of Court General Fund, and Fiduciary Fund.
Account for the missing official receipts by citing their serial numbers.
By issuing a Hold Departure Order, prevent her from leaving the country pending resolution.

Pacheco filed a Motion for Reconsideration on November 28, 2008:

She claimed the total shortage should be recomputed to only P95,529.28 by deducting certain withdrawals made by an Acting Clerk.
She requested an extension of six months to settle the deficiencies and to locate the missing receipts.

The motion was evaluated and ultimately denied:

The OCA and Court Administrator recommended denial of the motion.
The denial was grounded on the evidence of gross neglect of duty and failure to properly account for court funds.

Subsequent Resolution on June 10 and June 17, 2009:

The Court denied the motion for recomputation and the plea for additional time.
Pacheco was expressed to have agreed to resolve the matter based solely on the pleadings and documentary evidence.

Issues:

Determination of Accountability and Manipulation of Official Receipts

Whether the discrepancies between original, duplicate, and triplicate receipt copies constitute tampering meant to conceal misappropriation of funds.
To what extent the tampered receipts affected the financial accountability of the court funds.

Legality and Appropriateness of Depositing Practices

Whether depositing court collections with the Rural Bank of Paete instead of the authorized LBP violated existing Supreme Court circulars and established guidelines.
Whether the delay in transferring funds to the LBP constituted gross neglect of duty.

Sufficiency of Pacheco’s Defense and Explanation

Whether the respondent’s justifications regarding heavy workload, misinformed bank deposit protocols, and subsequent remedial measures credibly account for the discovered shortages.
Whether the explanation that funds from tampered receipts were used for court renovations is supported by evidence, particularly in view of contrary testimonies by court employees.

Determination of Appropriate Administrative Sanctions

Whether Pacheco’s actions amount to gross neglect of duty, dishonesty, and grave misconduct warranting dismissal from service.
Whether the restitution of funds, despite partial payment, should mitigate or exempt her from punitive measures.

Applicability of Judicial and Administrative Doctrines on Accountability

Whether the principles of strict accountability for court funds and the highest standards of integrity for judicial officers are sufficiently met or violated in this case.
How the failure to adhere to established guidelines (SC Circular Nos. 13-92 and 5-93) impacts her continued service in the judiciary.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (A.M. No. P-02-1625) Concise

Facts:

Case Digest (A.M. No. P-02-1625) Standard Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (A.M. No. P-02-1625)
Concise

Case Digest (A.M. No. P-02-1625)
Standard Advanced