Office of the Court Administrator v. Marasigan

A.M. No. P-05-2082 (November 29, 2011)

Clerk Hermenegildo I. Marasigan was dismissed for gross neglect and financial discrepancies.

Facts:

The case involves an administrative complaint filed by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Hermenegildo I. Marasigan, the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Kabacan, North Cotabato. The complaint arose from a financial audit conducted by the OCA from June 7 to 16, 2004, which examined the accountabilities of the former Clerk of Court-in-Charge, Barbara Espinosa, and the respondent, Marasigan, covering the period from September 1991 to May 2004.

The audit revealed a cash shortage of P660.80 during a cash count on June 7, 2004. This discrepancy was attributed to Marasigan's practice of depositing collections on a monthly basis rather than daily, despite the proximity of the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) branch. Additionally, the audit team discovered numerous missing documents essential for completing the audit, including official receipts, deposit slips, and records related to the Fiduciary Fund (FF). The absence of FF passbooks hindered the determination of interest earned on FF deposits, which should have been remitted to the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).

Following the audit, the OCA submitted a Final Report to the Supreme Court, which led to a resolution directing Marasigan to explain the cash shortage, his deposit practices, and the missing documents. The Court also ordered him to account for the interest earned on FF deposits and to submit various financial documents within ten days.

Marasigan filed an Omnibus Motion seeking an extension to comply with the directives and to lift his suspension, claiming he had entrusted the handling of court collections to a subordinate, Rebecca Necesito, who failed to maintain proper records. He expressed concern over the impact of his suspension on his family during the holiday season.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether Hermenegildo I. Marasigan is liable for gross neglect of duty as Clerk of Court.
  2. The implications of his failure to properly manage court funds and maintain necessary documentation.
  3. The appropriate administrative sanctions for the respondent's actions.

Arguments:

For the Complainant (OCA):

  • The OCA argued that Marasigan's failure to deposit collections daily and the significant number of missing documents constituted gross negligence in the performance of his duties.
  • The audit findings indicated a lack of proper oversight and management of court funds, which are critical to the integrity of the judicial system.
  • The OCA maintained that Marasigan, as the accountable officer, is responsible for any loss or shortage of funds, regardless of his claims of good faith in delegating tasks to subordinates.

For the Respondent (Marasigan):

  • Marasigan contended that he had entrusted the handling of court funds to Necesito, who was responsible for the missing documents and financial reports.
  • He argued that the lack of proper office equipment and support from the OCA contributed to the disorganization and loss of financial records.
  • Marasigan requested the lifting of his suspension and reinstatement, emphasizing that he had not been found liable in previous audits conducted by the Commission on Audit.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Court found Marasigan liable for gross neglect of duty, emphasizing that as Clerk of Court, he had a primary responsibility to safeguard court funds and maintain accurate records. The Court noted that his delegation of duties to a subordinate did not absolve him of accountability for the management of court finances. The respondent's failure to supervise and monitor the handling of funds and documents constituted gross negligence.

The Court highlighted that clerks of court are vital to the administration of justice and are designated custodians of court funds and records. The respondent's actions were deemed irresponsible, and the Court ruled that he must be sanctioned for his failure to perform his duties competently.

As a result, the Court dismissed Marasigan from service, forfeiting all leave credits and retirement benefits, and ordered him to restitute the total amount of P1,747,715.02, representing the shortages identified in the audit. The Court also directed the OCA to file appropriate cases against him for the recovery of any remaining shortages not covered by his leave benefits.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  • The case underscores the principle that clerks of court are accountable for the proper management of court funds and records, and any failure to do so may result in administrative sanctions, including dismissal.
  • It reinforces the notion that good faith in delegating responsibilities does not exempt an accountable officer from liability for negligence in their duties.
  • The ruling emphasizes the importance of maintaining accurate financial records and the consequences of failing to do so in the context of public service.