A.M. No. 02-9-24-0 - Re: Loss of Extraordinary Allowance Check of Judge Jovellanos

A check (No. 1106739) issued to Judge Eduardo U. Jovellanos, then Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) in Alcala, Pangasinan, became the subject of controversy after it was reported lost.
Judge Jovellanos had been suspended for one year pursuant to a Supreme Court en banc resolution dated August 1, 2000 (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1289).

In the third week of February 2002, during the filing of his clearance application for compulsory retirement effective January 25, 2002, it was discovered by the Checks Disbursement Division of the Financial Management Office (Office of the Court Administrator – OCA) that Judge Jovellanos was overpaid by P5,250 representing his extraordinary allowance for November 2000.
The check, which had not been mailed or cancelled despite being reported as lost, was unexpectedly found to have been deposited on April 2, 2001, at the Metrobank Branch in Cabanatuan City under account No. 3119275429.

One Marietta Rodriguez, an employee of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija, endorsed the check when it was deposited.
Subsequent inquiries by Virginia Togle, SC Chief Judicial Staff Officer, Checks Disbursement Division, led to two letters (dated March 14 and March 20, 2002) sent to Marietta Rodriguez requesting an explanation for her role in endorsing the check.
Marietta Rodriguez explained in her April 1, 2002 response that the check was given to her by Shirley Chua, Cashier II of the Accounting Division (OCA), as payment for an existing obligation. She also admitted having repeatedly approached Chua for cash discounting of checks and borrowing money at minimal interest.

Shirley Chua testified that she had used the check to pay for a carpet purchased from Marietta Rodriguez and stated that Rosario Santos, a utility worker assigned as processor of checks at the Finance Division, was the one who actually encashed it.
Rosario Santos, however, denied these allegations and claimed she had not approached Chua regarding the check in November 2000, asserting instead that she had transmitted it for cancellation on April 16, 2001.
Teresita Damian, Accounting I, Checks Disbursement Division, admitted her signature was on a photocopy of the transmittal record but maintained that she had received only two checks on April 16, 2001, excluding check No. 1106739.
Further investigation by the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) noted alterations in the record book entries, particularly regarding the timing and bracket notation for check No. 1106739, casting doubt on the authenticity of the transmittal.

The OAS, through a memorandum submitted on August 14, 2002 by Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative Officer Eden T. Candelaria, found sufficient evidence implicating Rosario Santos in the anomalous encashment of check No. 1106739.
Testimonies by other court personnel, including the examining officer ATTY. Ma. Carina M. Cunanan and supervisors, corroborated elements of the check rediscounting practice involving Shirley Chua and provided a detailed account of how the check was misdirected and misused.
The evidentiary discrepancies, such as the misdated record and altered transmittal details, further highlighted a deliberate effort to conceal the true timeline and method of encashment.

Apart from the check encashment, it was found that Shirley Chua had been operating a check-rediscounting business, engaging in transactions that involved lending money and processing checks from Supreme Court and lower court employees without proper endorsements.
Such activities were carried out ostensibly to aid employees in dire financial need but ultimately compromised the fiduciary integrity expected in court financial transactions.

Whether Rosario Santos is culpable for stealing, encashing, and converting for her personal use the amount represented by check No. 1106739.
Whether Rosario Santos’ actions constitute gross misconduct and dishonesty under relevant administrative rules.

The legitimacy of the transmittal dated April 16, 2001, particularly the discrepancies in the record book entries concerning check No. 1106739.
Whether alterations in the record evidences undermine the claim that the check was properly transmitted for cancellation.

Whether Shirley Chua is liable for violating court policies by engaging in check rediscounting and by facilitating the fraudulent encashment of the check.
The extent to which the personal business transactions of court employees, and the ease with which checks could be encashed for a fee, contributed to the fraudulent scheme.