G.R. No. A.M. No. P-11-2965; July 31, 2012
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, represented by ATTY. FRANCISCO R. VELASCO, Complainant, vs. ARLENE B. ASETRE, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court, Ocampo, Camarines Sur, Respondent. (Consolidated with A.M. No. P-10-2752)

FACTS

The Commission on Audit (COA) filed an administrative complaint against respondent Arlene B. Asetre, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Ocampo, Camarines Sur, for malversation of public funds, grave misconduct, and conduct prejudicial to the service. COA audit findings revealed a cash shortage of P150,004.00 covering the period December 8, 2003, to November 13, 2006, representing unremitted collections from various judiciary funds. The report alleged that Asetre failed to deposit collections on time, with delays ranging from one to 866 days, and admitted to using the money for personal purposes due to financial problems. She pleaded for clemency and offered to make restitution.
Subsequently, the Court Management Office of the Office of the Court Administrator (CMO-OCA) conducted its own financial audit covering March 1, 2004, to July 16, 2009. This audit confirmed and detailed substantial shortages across multiple funds: Judiciary Development Fund (JDF), P60,725.30; Special Allowance for the Judiciary Fund (SAJF), P91,598.50; Mediation Fund (MF), P19,500.00; and Fiduciary Fund (FF), P49,408.18. The total shortage ascertained was P221,231.98. Asetre admitted the shortages and reiterated her plea for compassion.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Arlene B. Asetre, Clerk of Court, is administratively liable for the shortages in the court’s fiduciary and collections funds.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court emphasized that a Clerk of Court acts as a fiduciary and is tasked with the efficient collection and proper custody of court funds. The duty to immediately deposit collections with authorized government depositories is ministerial and non-negotiable. Asetre’s failure to remit the funds on time, resulting in substantial and prolonged shortages, constitutes gross dishonesty and grave misconduct. Her admission of misappropriating the funds for personal use directly confirms malversation.
The Court rejected her plea for clemency, noting that restitution does not extinguish administrative liability. Financial hardship is not an excuse for misappropriating public funds, as such acts erode public trust in the judiciary. For gross dishonesty and grave misconduct, which are serious offenses punishable by dismissal even for a first offense, the Court imposed the penalty of DISMISSAL from service. She is also ordered to restitute the total shortage of P221,231.98. Any remaining monetary benefits shall be applied to the restitution. Presiding Judge Manuel E. Contreras was admonished for failure to exercise proper administrative supervision over the court’s financial transactions.