A.C. No. 5161 - Re: Rolando S. Torres

The case arose from the loss of checks issued in the name of the late Rodrigo Roy P. Melliza, former Clerk II, MCTC, Zarraga, Iloilo.
Mr. Melliza died on July 28, 2004, yet payroll processing continued for the months of August, September, and October 2004 due to advanced preparation of salaries.
A discrepancy emerged when his surviving spouse, processing his clearance for death benefits, claimed she was not receiving the paychecks corresponding to the aforementioned months.

The Chief of the Checks Releasing Division conducted inquiries to learn about the unclaimed paychecks.
The Clerk of Court of the 9th MCTC, Zarraga-Iloilo, confirmed that all unclaimed paychecks had been returned via registered mail to the Court Administrator.
Detailed records were kept including dates of mailing, paycheck numbering, amounts, and corresponding registry receipt numbers:

1st Quincena August 2004 — Check No. 1562262, LBP 2,940.00, mailed August 12, 2004 (Receipt No. 02385)
2nd Quincena August 2004 — Check No. 1566163, LBP 2,941.77, mailed August 19, 2004 (Receipt No. 02397)
1st Quincena September 2004 — Check No. 1571133, LBP 2,940.00, mailed September 9, 2004 (Receipt No. 02530)
2nd Quincena September 2004 — Check No. 1575041, LBP 2,941.00, mailed September 23, 2004 (Receipt No. 02665)
1st Quincena October 2004 — Check No. 1580041, LBP 2,940.00, mailed October 11, 2004 (Receipt No. 03814)

Subsequent inquiry by the office revealed that four out of the five checks were negotiated, lending credence to the allegation of wrongful encashment.

The procedural flow involved the Receiving Clerk, Mr. Rodrigo Lanche, Jr., who was responsible for collecting registered mails from the Post Office.
The records indicate that after receiving the mails, they were sorted into two categories: those for the Court Administrator and those for the Supreme Court proper.
The office relied on staff members such as Diosdado Makasiar and Esther T. Andres to process and open these mails.
When envelopes containing checks arrived, they were to be forwarded to Eduardo Espinola of the Checks Disbursement Division who maintained a list as proof of receipt.

Ms. Esther T. Andres, a Records Officer III, was specifically tasked to open and sort the mails addressed to the Court Administrator, including those with paychecks.
Despite being in charge, the checks in question were not recorded by Eduardo Espinola, raising suspicions about her handling of the documents.
On September 1, 2005, Andres tendered her resignation and subsequently went AWOL, just before a formal investigation was scheduled.
A formal investigation was initiated by the Complaints and Investigation Division (CID) following recommendations by Lilian Barribal-Co.
Although summons were served including a notice via registered mail to her provincial address, Ms. Andres did not attend the investigation, except for submitting a written reply on September 26, 2005, denying knowledge of the missing checks and attributing her absences to extended leaves due to her husband’s illness.

Mr. Roberto Guillergan confirmed the return of the unclaimed checks.
Mr. Rodrigo Lanche, Jr. detailed his role in receiving and sorting the mails.
Mr. Diosdado Makasiar explained his function in processing mail directed to the Court Administrator.
Mr. Eduardo Espinola testified regarding the missing entries in his check-receipt list.

These testimonies established a consistent chain of handling that pointed to a lack of proper recording and possible misappropriation.
The documentary trail, including office orders and registry receipts, reinforced the sequence of events raising serious allegations against Ms. Andres.

Whether Ms. Andres is responsible for the loss of the five paychecks issued to the late Mr. Melliza, considering the established chain of custody and handling procedures.
Whether the anomalous encashment of the checks implicates her in an act of theft, falsification of documents, and misappropriation of public funds.

Whether Ms. Andres was afforded the minimum procedural due process required in administrative proceedings.
Whether the opportunity to explain her side through appearance, written defense, and oral arguments was adequately provided.

Whether her act of tendering resignation prior to the scheduled investigation serves as an evasion of her administrative liability.
Whether her prolonged absence without official leave (AWOL) further substantiates her guilt and warrants the imposition of a harsher penalty.

What disciplinary measures are warranted in view of the demonstrated acts of dishonesty and gross misconduct.
Whether administrative sanctions, such as dismissal with forfeiture of retirement benefits and re-employment disqualification, are justified under the circumstances.