G.R. No. A.M. No. 2864-P. May 16, 1985.
Office of the Court Administrator, petitioner, vs. Amando S. Soriano and Mila R. Tijam, respondents.

FACTS

Respondent Amando Soriano was the deputy clerk of court and accountable officer for court fee collections at the defunct Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Iriga City. Respondent Mila Tijam was a clerk designated by Soriano to act as collection clerk. An audit by the Commission on Audit for the period January 11, 1976, to December 6, 1982, revealed a shortage of P56,850.71 in the court’s collections. Both respondents did not contest the audit finding. Tijam assured the amount would be restored within thirty days or upon the sale of her real property. Soriano averred that the shortage was solely Tijam’s responsibility. The investigating Executive Judge found that Soriano made the restitution through several remittances in February 1983. The Judge recommended absolving both respondents due to the restitution.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents are administratively liable despite having fully restituted the shortage.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that full restitution does not exempt respondents from administrative liability. As the accountable officer-in-charge, Soriano was responsible for all court collections and was required to exercise the strictest supervision over his designated collection clerk, Tijam. His failure to do so constituted negligence, making him liable. Tijam, as the collection clerk, was directly liable for her failure to account for the monies in her custody; her over-zealousness in restitution indicated her direct involvement. The Court distinguished the case from others by noting the three-month interregnum between the discovery of the shortage and its restoration, which created a presumption of misappropriation. Following precedent, restitution affects only civil liability and does not extinguish criminal or administrative liability. Both respondents were found administratively and criminally liable. They were ordered separated from the service with forfeiture of all retirement privileges and with prejudice to reappointment in any government position. The case was referred to the Tanodbayan for appropriate action.