REQUIREMENT ON HIGH ETHICAL STANDARD COVERS CLERK OF

COURT
TERESITA RETAZO VS LORNA A. VERDON
A.M. No. P-04-180; December 23, 2008;
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS LORNA A. VERDON
A.M. No. P-02-1653; December 23, 2008;
PER CURIAM
FACTS:
This is a consolidation of two administrative matters against respondent
Lorna A. Verdon, Clerk of Court of MCTC Don Carlos-Kitaotao-Dangcagan,
Bukidnon. A.M. No. P-02-1653 refers to respondents shortages in the cash
collection of the court, while A.M. No. P-04-1807 concerns the affidavitcomplaint dated 4 June 2003 filed by complainant Teresita Retazo charging
respondent with Malversation of Public Funds.
A.M. No. P-02-1653 commenced as a report on the financial accountabilities
of respondent Verdon as Acting Judge Villanueva had requested an
investigation of the missing cashbook and passbook for the Fiduciary Fund,
receipts, and other anomalies discovered by COA representatives when they
conducted an audit. The Finance Management Division-Court Management
Office of OCA directed respondent to submit the necessary documents but
only submitted photocopies of the same. Moreover, the Office of the Auditor
of the COAs Provincial Revenue Audit Group-Bukidnon sent respondent a
letter informing her that examination of her cash accounts revealed that
there was a shortage of P238,220.00, and that there were still official
receipts that were missing and unaccounted for. In a resolution, the Court
directed respondent to give explanation of her failure to comply with the
requirements needed and she was suspended from office pending case
resolution.
In A.M No. P-04-180, complainant Retazo filed an a complaint-affidavit
against respondent Verdon charging her with Malversation of Public Funds
claiming that the money amounting to P30,000 which she paid to secure
provisional liberty of accused Juanito Retazo was not collected when the
accused was acquitted and said bail was ordered to be returned. Collection of
said amount was not made because of respondents suspension and the
amount of funds in the latters custody was only P2, 052 as deposited in the
LandBank Account. Respondent failed to comment on the complaint
affidavit.
The OCA also recommends the dismissal of respondent from the service for
dishonesty and grave misconduct.

ISSUE: Does high ethical standard also imposed on court employees such as
Clerk of Court?
HELD: YES. Section 7, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court requires that the clerk
shall keep all record, papers, files, exhibits and public property committed to
his charge. Under Section 23, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Rules Implementing
Book V of E.O No. 292 and other Pertinent Civil Service Laws, dishonesty and
grave misconduct are considered grave offenses for which the penalty of
dismissal is prescribed even at the first instance. The Office of the Clerk of
Court performs a very delicate function, that of being the custodian of the
courts funds and revenues, records, properties and premises. Being the
custodian thereof, the clerk of court is liable for any loss, shortage,
destruction or impairment of said funds and properties. In the case at bar,
the respondents misappropriation and conversion of funds under her
custody by virtue of her official position show her unfitness to continue in
office.
Moreover, in Navallo v. Sandiganbayan, this Court reiterated that a public
servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity.
The persons behind administration of justice must live up to the strictest
standard of honesty and integrity in public service for the image of a court is
mirrored in the conduct of those who comprise it, from the judge to the least
and lowest of its personnel.
Thus, respondent as a Clerk of Court is covered on the high ethical standard
imposed by the court which she failed to live up and for this she should be
dismissed. Her actions placed her honesty and integrity in serious doubt.