OCA v.
GUAN ISSUE: W/N Guan is guilty of simple neglect of duty
(2015|Del Castillo)
Joebert Guan is the former Clerk of Court of MTC in Bulan,
Sorsogon. Following a financial audit of the books of accounts of MTC Bulan
Sorsogon July 28, 1993-Aug. 31, 2004, it found that he was accountable for
some collections which were not properly recorded in cashbooks, shortages
in the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and Special Allowance for the
Judiciary Fund (SAJF) of P48,207.10 and P5,116.00, respectively, the
financial reports on the JDF, SAJF and Fiduciary Fund (FF) were not
regularly submitted to Accounting Division of the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA), documents needed to validate withdrawals of cash
bonds from the Municipal Treasurer’s Office (MTO) of Bulan were missing,
no legal fees were attached and numerous instances of disorganization and
shortages.
The audit team recommended for Guan to restitute his incurred
shortages from the JDF and the SAJF by depositing the money to OIC Guim
and explain within 10 days from notice why he incurred such shortages and
why he should not be administratively dealt with. He must also secure certain
documents such as an itemized list of Unwithdrawn Fiduciary Fund or
cashbonds he deposited thereat, and submit to the OCA all the documents
regarding deposits and withdrawals from May 1998 – July 2005.
 The Court issued a Resolution adopting the recommendation of the
OCA as well as holding in abeyance any claim of Guan for
separation benefits pending resolution of the administrative matter
against him.
Guan: wrote a letter to the court requesting that the monetary value of his
leave credits be applied as payment for his accountability amounting to
P53,323.10. He explained the records were missing and the OCA would not
accept cerifications certain records were damaged by typhoon “Melenyo” in
2007. He requested for another audit on the itemized list of unwithdrawn
judiciary funds deposited by him. Despite the grant, the Court was not able to
find several records..
An audit team was made and it was revealed in the former OIC Guim
and the incumbent Clerk of Court Denso have no accountability but Guan
was accountable for a number of discrepancies. He was recommended to be
found guilty of violation of office rules and regulations and simple neglect of
duty with a fine of P10,000, the OCA is to provide the Financial Management
Office documents relating to Guan and for Guan to restitute the shortages in
case his earned leave credits or other benefits would not be sufficient.
HELD: He is guilty of gross neglect of duty
The Court disagrees with OCA that these are only simple neglect of
duty. In the Office of the Court Administrator v. Acampado, any shortages in
the amoutsnt o be remitted and the delay in the actual remittance thereof is
gross neglect of duty for which a clerk of court shall be held admin liable. In
the OCA v. Melchor, Jr. and OCA v. Zuriga, delayed remittance of cash is
gross neglect as it deprives the court of the interest it could have
earned.
 Gross neglect is such neglect which, from the gravity of the
case or the frequency of instances, becomes so serious in its
character as to endanger or threaten the public welfare.
CAB:
Guan’s accountability were either due to unreported or undeposited
collections or to deposited collection but with lacking documentation. This
demonstrates Guan’s disorganized management which violates AO Circular
No. 5-93 regardng the Duty of the Clerks of Court, OIC or accountable
officers.
 It is not only delay but also total failure to deposit such and is thus
gross neglect of duty.
 Guan committed two separate instances of shortages, thus his
neglect of duty is very serious.
While The accountability of P238,000 in FF was not due to unreported or
undeposited collections but incomplete documentation to support the
withdrawals therefrom, still, documentation of cash collections is
essential to the orderly administration of justice. The importance of such
task is evidenced by the issuance of the court circulars and other relevant
rules. Thus, failure to comply with such constitutes gross neglect of duty.
 Gross neglect of duty is classified as a grave offense and
punishable by dismissal even if for the first offense pursuant to
Section 52(A)(2) of Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on
Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
As to liability
Although Guan had already been dropped from the rolls for being
absent without official leave, he still remains administratively liable , although
the penalty of dismissal cannot be imposed upon him. Nevertheless, a fine
can be imposed and its amount is tantamount to the sound discretion of the
Court. Section 56(e) of Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules provides that
fine as a penalty shall be in an amount not exceeding the salary for six
months had the respondent not resigned [or been dropped from the rolls] the
rate for which is that obtaining at the time of his resignation. The fine shall be
deducted from any accrued leave credits he is personally liable for any
deficiency. Also disqualified from any future government service.

Notes:

Clerks of Court are the custodians of the courts’ ‘funds and revenues,
records, properties, and premises.’ They are liable for any loss, shortage,
destruction or impairment of those entrusted to them. Any shortages in the
amounts to be remitted and the delay in the actual remittance constitute
gross neglect of duty for which the clerk of court shall be held
administratively liable.

Clerks of courts are custodians of the courts funds and revenues. Any delay
in its remittance, or any shortages in the amounts, shall make the clerk of
court administratively liable.

DISPOSITIVE: GUILTY of gross neglect of duty