Issue 22-3

March 2022

CLERK OF COURT
• Dishonesty, gross neglect of duty and grave misconduct
The duties of a clerk of court are multi-faceted. Apart from exercising general administrative
supervision over all personnel of the court, a clerk of court also performs a delicate function as
designated custodian of the court’s funds, revenues, records, properties, and premises. Clerks
of court have always been reminded of their duty to immediately deposit the various funds
they receive to the authorized government depositories, for they are not supposed to keep the
funds in their custody. The importance of proper management of court collections cannot be
overemphasized as in fact, the Court had issued several circulars on the matter of handling
court funds. The clerk of court is, thus, entrusted with the responsibility of implementing these
regulations regarding fiduciary funds.

xxxx

Here, respondent clerk of court failed to immediately release complainant’s cash bond
to Atty. X pursuant to the Order dated June 26, 2007. Such failure is considered prima facie
evidence that she misappropriated the money. Respondent clerk of court was unable to rebut
this presumption. Although she tried to justify the delayed release of the cash bond by claiming
she had a pending inquiry with the auditor on the procedure for a partial refund, respondent
clerk of court presented no proof to support such claim. Too, that respondent clerk of court
was in X City and supposedly attending to her sick son is not an excuse. Personal problems
should never justify the incurring of shortages and the delay in remitting cash collections for the
judiciary. Worse, respondent clerk of court failed to fully disclose where the money was during
this supposed inquiry. To be sure, respondent clerk of court could have easily dispelled doubts
that she misappropriated the funds by presenting the passbook reflecting the date or dates
when she supposedly deposited and later withdrew the cash bond for turn over to Atty. X,
together with the corresponding deposit and withdrawal slips. This respondent clerk of court
failed to do, thus, leading to the indubitable conclusion that the amount was never deposited
with the court’s depositary bank. To repeat, the fact of non-deposit of the fund is prima facie
evidence of misappropriation which respondent clerk of court failed to refute.

xxxx

In Audit Report, RTC-4, Davao del Norte and Office of the Court Administrator v. Recio,
et al., the Court held that failure to remit court funds is tantamount to gross neglect of duty,
dishonesty and grave misconduct. Delayed remittance of cash collections constitutes gross
neglect of duty because this omission deprives the court of interest that could have been
earned if the amounts were deposited in the authorized depository bank. Even the restitution
of the whole amount cannot erase her administrative liability.

Issue 22-3|March 2022 Page 1 of 4

 Gross neglect of duty refers to negligence characterized by the glaring want of care; by
acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently, but
willfully and intentionally; or by acting with a conscious indifference to consequences with
respect to other persons who may be affected.

Dishonesty is defined as a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; unworthiness;

lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in principle; lack of fairness and
straightforwardness; disposition to defraud, deceive, or betray. Dishonesty is a malevolent
conduct that has no place in the judiciary. We have repeatedly warned that dishonesty,
particularly that which amounts to malversation of public funds, will not be countenanced.
Otherwise, courts of justice may, come to be regarded as mere havens of thievery and
corruption.

Misconduct, on the other hand, is a transgression of some established and definite rule
of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by the public officer. To
warrant dismissal from the service, the misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty,
momentous, and not trifling. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere
error of judgment and must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the
performance of the public officer’s official duties amounting either to maladministration or
willful, intentional neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the office. In order to
differentiate gross misconduct from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent
to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in the former.

xxxx

Here, the penalty of dismissal can no longer be meted on respondent clerk of court in
view of her resignation from the service. Nonetheless, the accessory penalties of cancellation of
civil service eligibility, forfeiture of benefits, and disqualification from reinstatement or re-
appointment to any public office subsist. x x x [A.M. No. P-09-2710 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-
2607-P), July 27, 2021] <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/24667/>

COURT STENOGRAPHER
• Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service; serious dishonesty; and committing
acts punishable under the Anti-Graft laws
The report affidavit is so replete with details showing how respondent court stenographer did
plan and execute, step by step, the unlawful means by which she attempted to corrupt the
court records and even the records of the Register of Deeds for her illegal and immoral purpose
of extorting P10,000 from complainant in exchange for the purported cancellation of the
encumbrance annotated in TCT No. T-XXXX02.

Respondent court stenographer has not specifically denied the contents of the report
affidavit, nor challenged the impartiality and credibility of Atty. B. All she did was allude to one
alleged friend of hers named “DDD” who, she asserted, had assumed the responsibility of
engaging a lawyer to assist complainant and CCC (landowner) in the cancellation process. But
the lie is simply too glaring to ignore. For one, complainant and CCC both asserted they
transacted and dealt only with respondent court stenographer on the cancellation process. For
another, complainant insisted that respondent court stenographer never introduced them to
nor even mentioned to them the name of “DDD” and her (DDD’s) so called lawyer-friend. It was
respondent court stenographer herself who quoted them the price for the cancellation process,
who received from them the duplicate title of TCT No. T-XXXX02 and the P10,000 payment, and
who issued to them acknowledgement receipts therefor. Notably, respondent court
stenographer never lifted a finger to contact “DDD” or at least ascertain her whereabouts, if

Issue 22-3|March 2022 Page 2 of 4

truly that person ever existed. Thus, as correctly found by the OCA, “DDD” is but a fictitious
person respondent court stenographer had conveniently fabricated to serve as her “fall guy.”

Another damaging evidence are the pieces of scratch papers Atty. B found on
respondent court stenographer’s desk bearing the specimen signatures of herself and Judge
A’s. Obviously, respondent court stenographer had done some practical writing exercises to
replicate their signatures before she actually wrote and affixed them to the fake order and
certificate of finality.

Further, as keenly noted by OCA, the spurious Order dated March 8, 2012 and
Certificate of Finality dated March 28, 2012 submitted to the Negros Occidental Register of
Deeds were indicated to have supposedly emanated from RTC-Branch X, X City, Negros
Occidental where respondent works as a court stenographer.

In fine, all the pieces of evidence lead to the indubitable conclusion that respondent
court stenographer herself, and no other, authored the fake court order and certificate of
finality, forged the signatures of Judge A and Atty. B appearing thereon, and submitted the
same to the Register of Deeds of Negros Occidental for the purpose of effecting the
cancellation of the subject encumbrance. Her acts were meant to justify her demand for and
receipt of P10,000 from complainant.

xxxx

Here, respondent is a court stenographer. As such, among her official functions and
duties is to transcribe the minutes of open court hearings and to capture and transcribe court
proceedings. It is not within her official duty to draft and issue an order, decision, or certificate
of finality. While court stenographers may be assigned to draft these issuances, they have no
authority to sign or issue them by authority of the court. There being no connection between
respondent court stenographer’s official functions and the act complained of, she cannot be
held liable for grave misconduct.

Jurisprudence, however, instructs that where the misconduct committed was not in
connection with the performance of duty, the proper designation of the offense should not be
[m]isconduct, but rather, [c]onduct [p]rejudicial to the [b]est [i]nterest of the [s]ervice. While
there is no hard and fast rule as to what acts or omissions constitute the latter offense,
jurisprudence ordains that the same “deals with [the] demeanor of a public officer which
tarnishe[s] the image and integrity of his/her public office.”

xxxx

As discussed, in exchange for a fee of P10,000, respondent court stenographer made it

appear that a petition for cancellation of encumbrance in TCT No. T-XXXX02 was filed by
complainant and that evidence were submitted therefor. To complete the process, she falsified
a court order supposedly granting the petition for cancellation of encumbrance. And for her
final act, she forged the signatures of Judge A in the order and that of Atty. B in the certificate
of finality. Respondent court stenographer, therefore, is patently liable for serious dishonesty.

Respondent court stenographer’s illegal acts also fall under Section 3(a) of Republic Act
No. 3019 (RA 3019) or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, to wit:

SEC. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. In addition to acts or omissions of public

officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices
of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful:

Issue 22-3|March 2022 Page 3 of 4

 (a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act
constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent
authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or
allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation
or offense.

Respondent court stenographer committed a corrupt practice within the contemplation

of the afore-cited provision when she issued a fake court order and certificate of finality and
forged her supervisors’ signatures in exchange for P10,000.

No less than the Constitution mandates that all public officers and employees should
serve with responsibility, integrity and efficiency, for public office is a public trust. No other
office in the government service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and
uprightness from an employee than the Judiciary. Thus, this Court has often stated that the
conduct of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must be beyond
reproach and must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let them be
free from any suspicion that may taint the Judiciary. The Court condemns any conduct, act, or
omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate
the norm of public accountability and diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary.
Respondent court stenographer failed to live up to this standard. [A.M. No. P-14-3242, October
5, 2021] < https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/25053/>

Issue 22-3|March 2022 Page 4 of 4