TL;DR

In a decisive ruling, the Supreme Court of the Philippines dismissed Clerk of Court VI, Edipolo P. Sarabia, Jr., and Cash Clerk III, Haydee B. Salazar, from their positions for gross misconduct, gross neglect of duty, serious dishonesty, and malversation of public funds amounting to over PHP 18 million. The Court underscored that public office is a public trust, demanding the highest standards of integrity and accountability from all judiciary employees. This case serves as a stern warning against corruption and dereliction of duty within the Philippine judicial system, ensuring that those entrusted with public funds are held to the strictest measures of responsibility and face severe consequences for breaches of that trust.

When Court Funds Vanish: Upholding Integrity in the Philippine Judiciary

This case arose from a financial audit prompted by the repeated failure of Clerk of Court VI, Edipolo P. Sarabia, Jr., to submit mandatory monthly financial reports. The audit uncovered staggering shortages across multiple court funds – the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF), Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF), Mediation Fund (MF), Sheriffs Trust Fund (STF), and the Fiduciary Fund (FF). The total unaccounted amount ballooned to PHP 18,458,356.64, implicating not only Sarabia but also other officers within the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Davao City.

The Supreme Court, in its per curiam decision, anchored its analysis on the bedrock principle that public office is a public trust. This constitutional mandate, enshrined in Article XI, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, dictates that public officers must be accountable to the people, serving with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. The Court emphasized that this standard is non-negotiable, especially within the judiciary, where public trust is paramount for the administration of justice. Referencing Office of the Court Administrator v. Isip, the decision reiterated that service in the Judiciary is not merely a duty but a mission, requiring all employees to be beyond reproach and exemplify the highest standards of honesty.

The audit findings detailed significant discrepancies. For the Fiduciary Fund alone, a shortage of over PHP 24 million was discovered, attributed to unaccounted withdrawals, undeposited collections, and double withdrawals of bonds. Similar shortages were found in the JDF, SAJF, and STF. Crucially, the Court applied the standard of substantial evidence, requiring only such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This standard, as clarified in Miro v. Vda. De Erederos, is less stringent than preponderance of evidence in civil cases or proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

The Court meticulously evaluated the culpability of each respondent. For Clerk of Court Sarabia, his own admission of negligence, coupled with the audit findings, provided overwhelming evidence of Gross Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, and Malversation of Public Funds. The Court highlighted Sarabia’s violation of Canon I of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (CCCP), which mandates judicious use of public funds and prohibits using official position for unwarranted benefits. Malversation, under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, was clearly established, satisfying all elements: Sarabia was a public officer with custody of public funds, which he misappropriated. While Rule 140 doesn’t explicitly list malversation, the Court categorized it under “commission of a crime involving moral turpitude,” a serious charge under Section 14(f).

Cash Clerk Salazar was also found liable, not only for Gross Neglect of Duty for failing to report Sarabia’s actions but also for Serious Dishonesty. Her silence and inaction, despite knowledge of the irregularities, were deemed a concealment of truth and a breach of her integrity as a public servant. The Court underscored that her dishonesty caused serious damage to the government and constituted a grave abuse of authority. Following precedents like Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Dureza-Aldevera, Salazar was held jointly and severally liable with Sarabia for restitution.

Clerk III Oquindo, while not directly involved in the malversation, was found guilty of Serious Dishonesty for her prolonged silence despite knowing about Sarabia’s wrongdoings. Although her liability was deemed less severe than Salazar’s, her failure to report the anomalies still constituted a serious breach of duty. In contrast, Clerks III Agbayani and Marquez were exonerated due to lack of substantial evidence linking them to the malfeasance.

The penalties imposed were severe, reflecting the gravity of the offenses. Sarabia and Salazar were dismissed from service with forfeiture of benefits (excluding accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from public office. Oquindo was fined PHP 120,000 and warned against future offenses. The Court ordered Sarabia and Salazar to jointly and severally restitute the entire PHP 18,458,356.64. Furthermore, the Office of the Court Administrator was directed to file criminal charges against Sarabia and Salazar, emphasizing the dual accountability – administrative and criminal – for such egregious breaches of public trust.

This case reinforces the unwavering commitment of the Philippine Supreme Court to uphold the integrity of the judiciary. It sends a clear message that financial malfeasance and dereliction of duty will not be tolerated, and those who betray public trust will face the full force of the law.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. SARABIA, JR., A.M. No. P-15-3398, July 12, 2022