Banzuela-Didulo vs. Santizo

A Clerk of Court who habitually delays the deposit of judiciary collections, tampers with and cancels official receipts without justification, and appropriates court funds for personal use commits Gross Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, and Gross Neglect of Duty; the pendency of criminal charges for malversation and falsification additionally supports a finding of Commission of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude, and the violation of deposit circulars constitutes a less serious charge of Violation of Supreme Court Rules, Directives, and Circulars.

Ma. Lorda M. Santizo served as Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court, San Joaquin, Iloilo from December 1, 2005 until September 8, 2016, when she was relieved of her authority to receive and collect court funds due to her failure to submit monthly financial reports. A financial audit covering April 1, 2007 to July 31, 2016 revealed shortages in the Fiduciary Fund, Judiciary Development Fund, Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund, and Mediation Fund totaling ₱94,562.80. Santizo restituted the shortages but was ordered to pay interest for delayed deposits. She was reinstated and her authority restored in October 2017 with a stern warning against repetition. Barely five months after reinstatement, Presiding Judge Irene B. Banzuela-Didulo discovered new violations involving mismanagement of court funds, prompting administrative complaints.

• Nature of the Action: Administrative complaints charging respondent Ma. Lorda M. Santizo, Clerk of Court II of the MTC, San Joaquin, Iloilo, with mismanagement of court funds, specifically delayed deposits, irregular handling of official receipts, tampering, and misappropriation.

• First Audit and Reinstatement: Santizo served as Clerk of Court from December 1, 2005 until September 8, 2016, when she was relieved for failure to submit monthly financial reports. A subsequent audit covering April 2007 to July 2016 discovered aggregate shortages of ₱94,562.80 across four funds. Santizo restituted the shortages and paid interest of ₱5,046.64 for delayed deposits. Pursuant to an OCA Memorandum dated October 27, 2017, she was reinstated and her authority to handle court funds restored, with a stern warning that repetition of similar infractions would be dealt with more severely.

• Post-Reinstatement Violations (as alleged by the complainant Judge):

  • On May 9, 2018, Santizo received a cash bond of ₱2,000.00 but deposited it only on June 4, 2018, violating the 24-hour deposit rule for fiduciary funds.
  • Pursuant to a court order dated January 8, 2018 in Criminal Case No. 1836, Santizo collected a fine of ₱2,000.00 but deposited it only on August 8, 2018, a delay of seven months.
  • Following a court order dated April 6, 2018 in Criminal Case No. 1842, Santizo collected a ₱2,000.00 fine from the accused without issuing any official receipt.
  • In Criminal Case No. 1780, the court ordered the release of a ₱24,000.00 cash bond to accused/bondsman Raymundo P. Cordero upon his acquittal. Santizo withdrew the ₱24,000.00 on April 10, 2018, and on April 11, 2018, issued two Acknowledgment Receipts under OR No. 5752810 for the same case: one for ₱24,000.00 and another for ₱12,000.00, both signed by Cordero. When confronted, Santizo admitted she falsified Cordero’s signature on the ₱12,000.00 receipt because she could not find the first receipt and panicked due to an impending COA audit.
  • In Civil Case No. 250, Santizo failed to remit to the plaintiff the amounts she had collected from the defendant as rental payments pursuant to a decision dated March 19, 2014.

• Financial Audit Report (CMO Audit Team): The audit conducted after the September 25, 2018 Resolution confirmed the previous shortages and uncovered:

  • Irregular Use and Cancellation of Official Receipts: OR series for Fiduciary Fund collections were deceitfully cancelled after an OR for General Fund was inserted; MF official receipts were used for STF collections, and remaining ORs were arbitrarily cancelled; STF collections were receipted using MF official receipt series.

  • Tampering of Official Receipts: The triplicate copy of OR No. 0507551 reflected an SAJF collection of ₱40.40 for March 2016, but the original copy showed it was issued on October 13, 2015 as a ₱12,000.00 cash bond for Criminal Case No. 1825. OR No. 5752810, originally issued on January 25, 2010 for a ₱24,000.00 cash bond, was marked cancelled but was used as basis for the bond refund.

  • Criminal Aspect: The Ombudsman found probable cause to indict Santizo for two counts of Malversation of Public Funds or Property and three counts of Falsification by a Public Officer. The charge for Qualified Theft was dismissed.

  • Santizo’s Defense: In her Comment, Santizo claimed 20 years of unblemished service, denied serious accountabilities, attributed delayed deposits to the distance of the LBP branch (20 km away), claimed inadvertent forgetfulness regarding one delayed deposit, denied collecting one ₱2,000.00 fine, denied falsifying Cordero’s signature and stated the ₱24,000.00 had been received by him, and asserted that no court order existed for the release of funds in the civil case.

  • Supplemental Complaints: The complainant submitted additional letter-complaints detailing other instances of irregular issuance and cancellation of official receipts involving different accused persons.

  • Resignation: Santizo tendered her resignation on March 28, 2019, effective April 1, 2019. The OCA officially accepted it in a letter dated September 26, 2019, without prejudice to the continuation of pending administrative proceedings.

• Absence of Serious Findings: Santizo maintained that there was no serious finding that she had money accountabilities or misappropriated Supreme Court funds.
• Impracticability of Timely Deposit: She argued that the Land Bank of the Philippines branch was located 20 kilometers away in Miagao, Iloilo, making it impossible to immediately and readily deposit small amounts collected. She nevertheless deposited the ₱2,000.00 cash bond on June 4, 2018.
• Inadvertence: The ₱2,000.00 fine collected in January 2018 but deposited only in August 2018 was allegedly forgotten inadvertently.
• Denial of Collection and Falsification: Santizo denied collecting ₱2,000.00 from the accused in Criminal Case No. 1842; disclaimed knowledge of the ₱12,000.00 acknowledgment receipt, asserting it was not an official record, and denied admitting falsification of Raymundo Cordero’s signature.
• Absence of Court Order for Release: She claimed no order had been issued for the release of collected amounts to the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 250, thus she could not release the funds.

• Administrative Liability: Whether respondent Santizo should be held administratively liable for the charges arising from her handling of court funds and official receipts.
• Characterization of Offenses: What specific administrative offenses were established by the evidence.
• Imposable Penalty: What penalty should be imposed in light of Santizo’s resignation and the multiple offenses found.

• Administrative Liability: Substantial evidence supported the findings of the OCA and the JIB that Santizo committed multiple violations warranting administrative liability. The acts of delaying remittance of court collections without valid justification, tampering with and cancelling official receipts irregularly, and appropriating collected cash bonds for personal use were established.
• Characterization of Offenses:
  • Gross Misconduct: Santizo’s deliberate failure to timely deposit funds, tampering with official receipts, and appropriating court funds transgressed established rules and constituted unlawful behavior with a direct relation to official duties, manifesting flagrant disregard of administrative circulars and a clear intent to violate the law. These acts violated the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, specifically Canon I, Section 5 (judicious use of resources and funds), and Canon IV, Sections 1 (diligent performance of official duties) and 3 (prohibition against altering, falsifying, destroying records).
  • Serious Dishonesty: Her repeated tampering, irregular use and cancellation of official receipts, and misappropriation of cash bonds exhibited a propensity to lie, cheat, deceive, and defraud, demonstrating lack of honesty, probity, and integrity.
  • Gross Neglect of Duty: Her habitual delay in depositing collections despite explicit mandates under OCA Circular Nos. 50-95 and 13-92 and SC Administrative Circular No. 05-93, and her repeated irregular handling of receipts without justification, constituted a flagrant and palpable breach of duty and conscious indifference to consequences.
  • Commission of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude: The pendency of criminal charges for two counts of Malversation and three counts of Falsification, both crimes involving moral turpitude, coupled with substantial evidence of the underlying acts, warranted administrative liability for this serious charge. Malversation involves embezzlement of public funds and is inherently immoral; falsification of public documents has been jurisprudentially categorized as a crime involving moral turpitude.
  • Violation of Supreme Court Rules, Directives, and Circulars: Santizo’s failure to timely deposit court funds violated OCA Circular Nos. 50-95 and 13-92 (requiring fiduciary collections to be deposited within 24 hours) and SC Administrative Circular No. 05-93 (requiring daily deposits or immediate deposit once collections reach ₱500.00).
  • Imposable Penalty: The various acts and omissions were viewed as a single collective act giving rise to multiple offenses. Under the second paragraph of Section 21, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, the penalty for the most serious offense—Gross Misconduct—was applied. The prescribed penalty for a serious charge under Section 17(1) is dismissal from service, forfeiture of benefits, and disqualification from public office. Because Santizo’s resignation had been accepted, the penalty of dismissal could no longer be imposed. Pursuant to Section 18 of Rule 140, the penalties in lieu of dismissal were: (a) forfeiture of all or part of benefits (excluding accrued leave credits); and (b) a fine within the range for serious charges. A fine of ₱101,000.00 was imposed.

• Public Trust Doctrine and Accountability of Court Personnel — Clerks of Court are custodians of court funds, revenues, records, and property; they are burdened with a high degree of discipline and efficiency. Any loss, shortage, destruction, or impairment of such funds renders them liable. The Constitution mandates that public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.
• Substantial Evidence in Administrative Proceedings — To sustain a finding of administrative culpability, only substantial evidence is required—that amount of relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. A criminal conviction is not a prerequisite; an administrative case proceeds independently.
• Dishonesty, Gross Misconduct, and Gross Neglect Defined —
• Dishonesty is the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; lack of integrity, fairness, and straightforwardness.
• Gross Misconduct requires a transgression of an established rule with wrongful intention, direct relation to official duties, and elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules.
• Gross Neglect of Duty is characterized by want of even the slightest care, conscious indifference to consequences, or flagrant and palpable breach of duty.
• Crimes Involving Moral Turpitude — Moral turpitude is an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the performance of duties owed to society. Falsification of public documents and malversation of public funds both constitute crimes involving moral turpitude. The amended Rule 140 allows administrative liability for “Commission of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude” upon substantial evidence, without requiring a final conviction.
• Penalty for Multiple Offenses under Rule 140 — When a single act or omission constitutes multiple offenses, the respondent is pronounced liable for all but a singular penalty is imposed—the penalty for the most serious offense. Where multiple offenses arise from separate acts, separate penalties may aggregate, and if the aggregate exceeds five years’ suspension or ₱1,000,000.00 in fines, the Court may impose dismissal.
• Penalty in Lieu of Dismissal on Account of Supervening Resignation — Under Section 18, Rule 140, when dismissal can no longer be imposed due to resignation, the respondent may be meted: (a) forfeiture of all or part of benefits (excluding accrued leave credits) and disqualification from public office, and/or (b) a fine as provided for serious charges (over ₱100,000.00 but not exceeding ₱200,000.00).

• "Public office is a public trust. No less than the Constitution itself ordains that public officers and employees must always be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. Indeed, this Court has consistently held that those charged with the dispensation of justice, from justices and judges to the lowliest clerks, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Not only must their conduct be characterized by propriety and decorum at all times but, above all else, it must be beyond suspicion."

• "The safekeeping of funds and collections is essential to an orderly administration of justice, and no protestation of good faith can override the mandatory nature of the circulars designed to promote full accountability for government funds."

• "To sustain a finding of administrative culpability, only substantial evidence is required… Evidence to support a conviction in a criminal case is not necessary, and the dismissal of the criminal case against the respondent in an administrative case is not a ground for the dismissal of the administrative case."

• On the second paragraph of Section 21, Rule 140: "Certain acts or omissions may constitute multiple offenses. In this regard, the respondent must be pronounced liable for all such offenses, but only a singular penalty shall be imposed on him or her. This is in keeping with the notion that one act/omission must only give rise to one penalty."

• Office of the Court Administrator v. Del Rosario, A.M. No. P-20-4071, September 15, 2020 — Delaying remittance of court collections without valid justification and tampering/falsifying official receipts constitute gross dishonesty, grave misconduct, and gross neglect of duty. Followed.
• Re: Financial Audit on the Books of Account of Ms. Delantar, 520 Phil. 434 (2006) — Failure to remit funds in due time and misappropriating judiciary funds constitute gross dishonesty and gross misconduct. Followed.
• Office of the Court Administrator v. Recio, 665 Phil. 13 (2011) — Failure to remit funds in due time constitutes gross dishonesty and gross misconduct. Followed.
• Office of the Court Administrator v. Acampado, 721 Phil. 12 (2013) — Failure of a Clerk of Court to correctly implement regulations on collection and immediate deposit of legal fees, coupled with misappropriation, constitutes Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct, and Serious Dishonesty. Followed.
• Office of the Court Administrator v. Ruiz, 780 Phil. 133 (2016) — Falsification of public documents is a crime involving moral turpitude; malversation is likewise a crime involving moral turpitude. Followed to support the “Commission of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude” charge.

• Canon I, Section 5, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC) — Court personnel shall use resources, property, and funds under their official custody in a judicious manner and solely in accordance with prescribed statutory and regulatory guidelines. Violated by Santizo’s misappropriation and irregular handling of funds.
• Canon IV, Section 1, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel — Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence. Violated by repeated delays and omissions.
• Canon IV, Section 3, Code of Conduct for Court Personnel — Prohibits altering, falsifying, destroying, or mutilating any record except by court order. Violated by tampering and falsifying official receipts.
• OCA Circular Nos. 50-95 and 13-92 — All collections from bailbonds, rental deposits, and other fiduciary collections shall be deposited within 24 hours by the Clerk of Court upon receipt with the Land Bank of the Philippines. Violated by delayed deposits.
• SC Administrative Circular No. 05-93 — Requires daily deposit of judiciary collections or immediate deposit when collections reach ₱500.00; provides alternative mode when no LBP branch is accessible. Violated by habitual non-compliance.
• Rule 140, Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC —
• Section 14(a), (c), (d), (f): Serious charges including Gross Misconduct, Serious Dishonesty, Gross Neglect of Duty, and Commission of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude.
• Section 15(e): Less serious charge of Violation of Supreme Court Rules, Directives, and Circulars.
• Section 17(1): Sanctions for serious charges (dismissal, suspension, or fine).
• Section 18: Penalty in lieu of dismissal due to resignation, retirement, or other separation.
• Section 21: Penalty for multiple offenses; singular penalty for single act constituting multiple offenses.
• Section 24: Retroactive application to all pending and future administrative disciplinary cases.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Hernando, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, and Singh, JJ., concur. Marquez, J., no part.