Lirios v. Oliveros

A.M. No. P-96-1178 (February 6, 1996)

Clerk Salvador P. Oliveros fined P10,000 for grave misconduct in handling funds and supplies.

Facts:

This administrative case originated from a letter dated April 20, 1995, written by Judge Aniceto A. Lirios of the Municipal Trial Court in Naval, Biliran, to the Chief of the Supreme Court Audit Team. In his letter, Judge Lirios reported several irregularities committed by his Clerk of Court, Salvador P. Oliveros. The allegations included:

  1. Oliveros failed to account for consignation deposits made in two civil cases: Civil Case No. 324 (Veneracion v. Yu King Hua) and Civil Case No. 356 (Veneracion v. Eng Kee Ong), both concerning illegal detainer. Specifically, Judge Lirios noted that in Civil Case No. 356, the total consignation deposits amounted to P49,500.00, which were only covered by temporary receipts issued by Oliveros to the defendant, Eng Kee Ong. Judge Lirios, who assumed office in June 1993, could only assess irregularities from that date onward. He also reported that the Municipal Treasurer of Naval certified that no collections or funds from these civil cases had been deposited with his office by Oliveros.

  2. Oliveros requisitioned office supplies, including one typewriter and two stand fans, from the Supreme Court without the consent of Judge Lirios. He subsequently kept the equipment, except for the typewriter, at his residence.

In response to these allegations, Judge Lirios issued Office Order No. 95-1 on January 16, 1995, requiring Oliveros to turn over all amounts consigned in connection with the aforementioned civil cases within ten days. Eng Kee Ong, the defendant in Civil Case No. 356, submitted a position paper with machine copies of the temporary receipts issued by Oliveros from February 1992 to December 1994.

On January 18, 1995, Oliveros filed a comment with the Regional Trial Court of Biliran, claiming that Judge Lirios had verbally instructed him to procure office supplies from the Supreme Court. He asserted that he had complied with this instruction and had delivered the supplies to the court, except for the typewriter and electric fans, which he claimed were still in his house.

Following Judge Lirios's report, Ms. Antonina A. Soria from the Fiscal Audit Division of the Supreme Court issued a memorandum on May 25, 1995, stating that consignation deposits made by litigants are considered trust funds and should be deposited with either the Land Bank of the Philippines or the municipal treasurer. An investigation revealed that Oliveros had failed to remit his collections for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) in a timely manner, having only remitted P42,566.00 out of a total of P43,128.60 from May 1985 to December 1994.

On July 19, 1995, the Supreme Court issued a resolution requiring Oliveros to show cause within ten days why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for several infractions, including failure to issue official receipts for consignation deposits, failure to deposit collections with authorized depositories, delays in remitting JDF collections, and failure to deliver requisitioned office equipment.

In his answer filed on August 30, 1995, Oliveros admitted to not issuing official receipts for the consignation deposits but claimed this was in line with the practice of the RTC Clerk of Court of his previous assignment. He argued that he had never been reprimanded by any superiors, maintained that he kept the funds in his vault, and provided evidence of timely deposits after audits. He also claimed that he instructed the OIC Clerk of Court to retrieve the stand fans from his house, which had remained unopened.

On September 18, 1995, the Supreme Court noted Oliveros's answer and referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation. The OCA recommended a one-month suspension for Oliveros on October 23, 1995.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether Salvador P. Oliveros committed grave misconduct by failing to account for consignation deposits and not issuing official receipts.
  2. Whether Oliveros violated Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 regarding the immediate deposit of collections.
  3. Whether Oliveros's actions regarding the requisitioned office equipment constituted misconduct.

Arguments:

  • Complainant (Judge Lirios): Judge Lirios argued that Oliveros's failure to account for the consignation deposits and issue official receipts constituted a serious breach of duty. He emphasized the importance of trust in the handling of court funds and the need for accountability in the judiciary. Lirios also highlighted Oliveros's unauthorized requisition of office supplies and the failure to deposit collections in a timely manner.

  • Respondent (Oliveros): Oliveros contended that he had followed the practices of his previous assignment and had not been reprimanded for his actions. He claimed that he kept the funds secure in his vault and that he had complied with the requisition instructions given by Judge Lirios. He also argued that the delay in retrieving the office equipment was not his fault.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court found Salvador P. Oliveros guilty of grave misconduct in office. The Court emphasized that Oliveros's actions demonstrated a clear violation of the trust reposed in him as a cashier and disbursement officer of the court. The Court noted that his admission of keeping collections in his vault and only depositing them after audits was a direct violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92, which mandates immediate deposit of fiduciary collections.

The Court also expressed concern over Oliveros's failure to deliver the requisitioned office equipment promptly, suggesting that this behavior raised suspicions of potential misappropriation of government property. The undue delay in remitting collections for the Judiciary Development Fund was characterized as grave misfeasance, if not malversation of funds.

The Court reiterated the principle that public office is a public trust, and all public officers must be accountable to the people. The Court imposed a fine of P10,000.00 on Oliveros, with a stern warning that any repetition of similar acts would result in more severe penalties.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. The handling of court funds, including consignation deposits, is a fiduciary duty that requires immediate action and accountability.
  2. Public officers must adhere strictly to established protocols regarding the management of public funds and property.
  3. The judiciary must maintain the highest standards of integrity and accountability to uphold public trust.