Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

8th Judicial Region
BRANCH 38
Gamay, Northern Samar

10 December 2019

IMELDA R. OBALLO
State Auditor III
Audit Team Leader
Commission on Audit
Regional Office No. VIII
Candahug, Palo, Leyte

MARINA Q. BARROT
State Auditor IV
OIC-Regional Supervising Auditor
Commission on Audit
Regional Office No. VIII
Candahug, Palo, Leyte

RE: AOM No. 2019-024A (19) dated 18 November 2019

Madams:

Greetings!

In consonance with Audit Observations Memorandum (AOM) No. 2019-024A (19) dated 18
November 2019 issued by your office relative to the audit conducted on the operations of
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 38, Gamay, Northern Samar, the undersigned hereby
submits the following comments thereto:

1. The disbursements on Fiduciary Fund (FF) for the release of cash bail bond are thru
withdrawal slips based on court order and directly paid to the claimant contrary to
COA Circular No. 97-002 dated February 10, 1997.

The undersigned agrees with the preceding observation. However, when the undersigned
sought clarification from the Court Management Office - Supreme Court regarding the
matter, the former was informed that courts are not required to have a checking account for
its fiduciary funds as the latter have the option to maintain either a savings account or a
checking account. This is clear from the wording of OCA Circular No. 50-95 as cited by the
AOM – “Deposits of fiduciary funds shall be made under a savings account. A current
account may also be maintained provided that a savings account is also maintained with
automatic fund transfer arrangement.”
 2. Deposits of 36 plaintiffs/petitioners amounting to P36,000.00 representing 72 percent
of the P49,840.00 balance of unwithdrawn deposits as of October 31, 2019 under the
Sheriff’s Trust Fund comprising of unused deposits and excess from the defrayed
expenses relative to the trial of the case, remained unreleased despite the termination
of the corresponding cases therein, thus, depriving the plaintiff/petitioner from its use
of their money.

The undersigned agrees with the foregoing observation. It is to be noted, however, that the
reason conveyed by the undersigned during the audit as to the non-withdrawal/non-release of
unused STF deposits is primarily because those terminated cases with unused STF deposits
were decided many years ago and the petitioners/plaintiffs are no longer residing within the
territorial jurisdiction of RTC-Branch 38, Gamay, Northern Samar and not because
“plaintiff/petitioners are hesitant to get the excess because they will file for a motion for the
withdrawal and would again entail additional lawyer’s fee.” Matter-of-factly speaking, a
total amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) from the STF deposits was withdrawn by
the undersigned on May 2018 but was re-deposited on November 2019 due to the failure of
the plaintiffs/petitioners to claim their STF deposits despite the lapse of considerable length
of time.

Thank you very much.

Very truly yours,

ATTY. CESAR NORMAN Y. CALAMAY

Clerk of Court VI
 Republic of the Philippines
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
8th Judicial Region
BRANCH 38
Gamay, Northern Samar

10 December 2019

IMELDA R. OBALLO
State Auditor III
Audit Team Leader
Commission on Audit
Regional Office No. VIII
Candahug, Palo, Leyte

MARINA Q. BARROT
State Auditor IV
OIC-Regional Supervising Auditor
Commission on Audit
Regional Office No. VIII
Candahug, Palo, Leyte

RE: AOM No. 2019-024 (19) dated 02 December 2019

Madams:

Greetings!

In consonance with Audit Observations Memorandum (AOM) No. 2019-024 (19) dated 02
December 2019 issued by your office relative to the audit conducted on the cash accounts of
the accountable officer of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 38, Gamay, Northern Samar,
the undersigned hereby submits the following comments thereto:

1. The collections were not deposited intact daily or not later than the next banking day
or when collections reached P10,000.00 contrary to Item 32 of COA Memorandum
No. 2013-004, No. 5 paragraph C of Administrative Circular No. 5-93 and B.4 of
OCA Circular No. 50-95, thereby exposing government funds to possible risk of loss
due to unforeseen events.

The undersigned agrees with the foregoing observation. It is to be emphasized, however,

that aside from the distance of this court to the depositary bank (111 kilometers as cited by
AOM), the difficulty of travelling from RTC – Gamay to Land Bank – Catarman and vice
versa is also a factor for the failure of the undersigned to deposit court collections within the
prescribed period set by existing applicable rules. As a matter of fact, it would take 3 to 4
hours travel time just to reach Land Bank – Catarman and to do so the undersigned needs to
travel from his official station to Brgy. Pangpang, Palapag, Northern Samar via
van/motorcycle; from Brgy. Pangpang, Palapag, Northern Samar to Brgy. Calomotan,
Laoang, Northern Samar via motorized boat; from Brgy. Calomotan, Laoang, Northern
Samar to Laoang Pier, Laoang, Northern Samar via motorcycle; from Laoang Pier, Laoang,
Northern Samar to Brgy. Rawis, Laoang, Northern Samar via motorized boat; and finally,
from Brgy. Rawis, Laoang, Northern Samar to Catarman, Northern Samar via personal
vehicle. Consequently, to deposit court collections within twenty-four hours or on the next
banking day from the date of receipt thereof would be highly costly and impractical on the
part of the undersigned.

2. The Report of Accountability for Accountable Forms (RAAF) was not prepared and
submitted by the accountable officer contrary to Sec. 17, Chapter 8 of Government
Accounting Manual (GAM) for National Government Agencies Volume 1 and Par. 2
of OCA Circular 203-2018 dated September 14, 2018, thereby the movement and
status of accountable forms cannot be easily monitored.

The undersigned does not agree with the said observation. Since the issuance of OCA
Circular No. 203-2018 on 14 September 2018, the undersigned has judiciously and timely
submitted RAAF to the Office of the Court Administrator, Supreme Court, copy furnished
the Commission on Audit, Regional Office No.VIII, Palo, Leyte. Copies of the earliest
(September 2018) and latest (November 2019) RAAFs prepared and submitted by the
undersigned are hereto attached as proof of such compliance.

3. The accountable officer is not bonded contrary to Sec. 101 of PD 1445 and Item 4.1
of Treasury Circular No. 02-2009 dated August 6, 2009 thus, putting the government
at risk on the non-indemnification of government fund in case of unrelieved losses
due to unforeseen event.

The undersigned agrees with the preceding observation. It is to be noted, however, that
the Finance Division – Supreme Court, has yet to furnish the undersigned copies of the
required bonding application documents hence, the failure of the latter to comply with the
bonding requirement.

Thank you very much.

Very truly yours,

ATTY. CESAR NORMAN Y. CALAMAY

Clerk of Court VI