A.M. No. P-05-1966 - Office of the Court Administrator vs. Ramos

On February 1, 2005, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted a Report on the Financial Audit on the Books of Account of respondent, former Clerk of Court Melecio T. Ramos, to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
The report covered the performance of financial audits on the funds under the respondent’s charge, namely the Clerk of Court General Fund, the Fiduciary Fund, and the Judiciary Development Fund.

Respondent retired on May 28, 1998, from his post as Clerk of Court of the Metropolitan Courts in Cities (MTCC), Tuguegarao City.
Before granting his clearance, the Fiscal Monitoring Division of the OCA conducted an examination of his cash collections and accounts to ensure there were no pending cash accountabilities.
Respondent was required to submit pertinent documents (cashbooks, deposit slips, monthly collection reports, passbooks, etc.) for audit purposes.

The audit revealed that while the accounts for the Clerk of Court General Fund and the Judiciary Development Fund were in order, the Fiduciary Fund showed a shortage.
The shortage was computed as follows:

Total collections for the period August 1995 to May 21, 1998 amounted to P5,929,506.00.
Withdrawals for the same period totaled P2,944,418.00, leaving an unwithdrawn balance of P2,985,088.00.
Deductions for total bank deposits of P2,936,615.96 resulted in a final shortage of P48,472.02.

Additionally, the audit discovered that respondent maintained five separate depositary accounts with Land Bank—one for the Office of the Clerk of Court and one for each of the four branches of the MTCC—and that he was the sole signatory on all transactions.

On September 6, 2004, respondent sent a letter to the OCA appealing for the release of his retirement benefits, submitting a Certificate of Settlement and Balance from the Office of the Auditor, Tuguegarao City.
The OCA, in its reply dated October 4, 2004, stated that the certificate could not serve as a basis for clearance; respondent was directed to submit the required Statement of Unwithdrawn Fiduciary Fund and to settle the shortage of P48,472.02.
On November 4, 2004, respondent submitted an explanation:

He admitted to maintaining five depositary accounts for the Fiduciary Fund, claiming ignorance of Supreme Court Circular No. 50-95 and asserting that different offices (the court’s branches and the Office of the Clerk of Court) warranted separate passbooks.
He argued that the practice went unquestioned by the judges and that any inquiries could be resolved by presenting the corresponding accounts.
He also stated that his delay in submitting the Statement of Unwithdrawn Fiduciary Fund was due to the unavailability of the proper forms at the time of his retirement and administrative delays thereafter.

On November 15, 2004, respondent reiterated his request for early release of his retirement benefits, proposing that the shortage be deducted from his terminal leave pay.

The OCA recommended that the case be docketed as a regular administrative matter against respondent for failing to deposit the correct amounts and causing a shortage in collections.
A fine of P5,000.00 was proposed for the infraction, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
The OCA further directed the Financial Management Office to deduct the shortage of P48,472.02 from his retirement benefits and to coordinate with the Fiscal Monitoring Division and the Court Management Office to furnish evidence of proper deposit of the deducted amount.

Whether respondent’s handling of the Fiduciary Fund, evidenced by the incurred shortage of P48,472.02, constitutes a breach of duty and is tantamount to dishonesty.

Consideration of the discrepancy between collections and bank deposits.
Evaluation of whether the shortage indicates misappropriation or miscalculation.

Whether maintaining five depository accounts for the Fiduciary Fund, contrary to the stipulations of Supreme Court Circular No. 50-95, amounts to gross misconduct.

The issue of whether respondent’s claim of ignorance of the circular is tenable.
The administrative significance of having multiple accounts in relation to the mandated single account practice.

Whether the administrative procedures, including the failure to submit the Statement of Unwithdrawn Fiduciary Fund, justify imposing sanctions on respondent.

Analysis of the respondent’s administrative neglect and how it affects his eligibility for retirement benefits.
The relevance of prior similar cases in establishing standards for accountability.