EN BANC

Re: Report on the Judicial and

Financial Audit Conducted in the
Municipal Trial Courts of Bayombong
and Solano and the Municipal Circuit
Trial Court,Aritao-Sta. Fe, All in Nueva
Vizcaya

A.M. No. 05-3-83-MTC

Present:

PUNO, C.J.,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
CARPIO,
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CORONA,
CARPIO MORALES,
AZCUNA,
TINGA,
CHICO-NAZARIO,
GARCIA,
VELASCO, JR.,
NACHURA, and
REYES, JJ.

Promulgated:
October 9, 2007
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
RESOLUTION
PER CURIAM:

On May 3, 2003, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted a judicial audit and physical
inventory of cases at the Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) of Bayombong and Solano, Nueva Vizcaya. Judge Alexander
S. Balut was the acting presiding judge in both courts.
The audit team found that as of audit date, MTC, Solano had 1,590 cases. Of these cases, 31 were
submitted for decision, 101 had pending motions/incidents for resolution, 595 were dormant, 113 had no further

setting in the court calendar and 47 had not been acted upon since the time of filing. The first two groups of cases
had not been decided or resolved within the 90-day reglementary period.
On the other hand, MTC, Bayombong had 1,442 cases. Of these cases, two were submitted for decision, 71
had pending motions/incidents for resolution, 1,015 had no further action for a considerable length of time, 41
had no further setting in the court calendar and 117 cases had no initial action since the time of filing.
As a result of the audit, the OCA directed Judge Balut to explain his failure to decide and resolve cases
within the mandatory period. He was also directed to inform the Court of the causes of the delay in the movement
of the dormant cases.
Judge Balut explained that he failed to decide and resolve cases on time because of his heavy caseload
and designation as acting presiding judge in the MTCs of Bayombong, Solano, Kayapa and Ambaguio. He stated
that he conducted hearings everyday, Mondays at Solano, Tuesdays at Bayombong, Wednesdays and Thursdays
at Aritao-Sta. Fe,[1] and alternately in Ambaguio and Kayapa on Fridays. He claimed that his human capabilities
had already been taxed to the limits and that it would entail superhuman effort to timely accomplish all the work
in his various court assignments.
Judge

Balut

also

claimed

that

conducting

preliminary

investigations

had

exacerbated

his

caseload. Furthermore, his lack of a legal researcher contributed to his failure to act on the cases with
dispatch. He also alleged that as early as 1998, he had sought exemption from the mandatory period to render
judgment.
In August 2003, another judicial audit was conducted in the MTCs of Solano and Bayombong, as well as in
the other courts presided over by Judge Balut. A comparison of the first and second audits of both the Solano and
Bayombong MTCs disclosed that a large number of cases remained unacted upon by Judge Balut.
The Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Aritao-Sta. Fe, on the other hand, had 292 pending cases. There
were no cases submitted for decision and only one case had a pending motion for resolution. However, there were
161 dormant cases and 19 cases with no further setting in the court calendar.
Judge Balut explained that he failed to act on the cases pending in MCTC, Aritao-Sta. Fe because of his
designation in four other courts. He also claimed that the scheduling of cases for hearing was solely undertaken
by the Clerk of Court. However, after the audit, he had instructed the concerned personnel to immediately
calendar the cases which had no settings yet. He had also immediately acted on some dormant cases by
dismissing or archiving them.
Aside from the judicial audit, a financial audit was also conducted in the MTCs of Bayombong and Solano as
well as the MCTC of Aritao-Sta. Fe.
In the MTC, Bayombong, where Judith En. Salimpade was Clerk of Court II, the audit team found an
unremitted amount of P18,702.00 representing the courts collection from August 3, 2003 to August 18, 2003. Said
amount was deposited only on August 18, 2003, upon advise by the audit team, in the Land Bank of
the Philippines account.Furthermore, 31 booklets of accountable forms issued to Ms. Salimpade by the Property
Division, SC and OCA were not accounted for. Also, the court had a total Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)
collection of P348,993.60 from January 1990 to August 2003. However, only P186,330.98 was remitted by Ms.
Salimpade leaving a balance ofP162,662.62; the total Clerk of Court General Fund (CCGF) collections from January
1996 to August 2003 (audit scope) showed an unremitted amount of P30,411.70; and as of August 31, 2003 the
Fiduciary Fund had a total cash shortage of P1,864,304.27 which covered the collections from 1995 to August
2003.

In

sum,

the

shortages

in

the

various

funds

incurred

by

Salimpade

as

of August

31,

2003 totaled P2,057,378.59.

Salimpade, when asked about the shortages, explained that Judge Balut, since 1995 had been getting
money from the JDF collections. She had given in to the requests of Judge Balut out of fear of him. She also
admitted that she lent her co-employees money which she took from her collections.
Parenthetically, in September 2003, Judge Balut turned over P240,000.00 to Salimpade and the latter
issued a certification[2] stating that the former had completely settled his monetary accountability to the MTC,
Bayombong. Judge Balut delivered to the Fiscal Monitoring Division, Court Management Office (CMO) OCA [3] the
certification and deposit slip[4] evidencing the turnover of the P240,000.00.
The audit team also found that Salimpade failed to regularly submit her monthly report of collections, as
required in Supreme Court Circular No. 32-93. [5] Consequently, Salimpades salaries were withheld effective August
2003 to the present.
In the MTC, Solano, the spot cash count on the courts collection disclosed that Eduardo Esconde, Clerk of
Court, had an unremitted/undeposited cash on hand amounting to P59,545.00. However, the Official Receipts
issued to cover said amounts were not accounted for. The said cash amount was deposited on August 21, 2003 to
Land Bank JDF Account No. 0591-0116-34.
A review of the receipts on file from May 2001 to July 2003 also showed a total cash shortage
of P106,527.80. However, on August 29, 2003, Esconde deposited in the CCGF and JDF bank accounts sums
corresponding to the said shortage.[6] Esconde explained to the audit team that Judge Balut borrowed various
amounts from the collections.He stated that Judge Balut started borrowing funds when the former was still the
Clerk of Court of MCTC, Aritao-Sta. Fe. He transferred to MTC, Solano to get out of the shadow of Judge Balut. But,
much to his dismay, Judge Balut was designated Acting Presiding Judge of MTC, Solano and continued the practice
of borrowing money from the collections of the court.
In the MCTC, Aritao-Sta. Fe, the audit team found that Lydia Ramos, [7] Clerk of Court, succeeded Eduardo S.
Esconde on July 16, 2000, without proper turnover of accountabilities. The team also found that the amount
of P540.00, part of the JDF collections from August 1, 2003 to August 21, 2003, remained undeposited at the time
of audit.Said amount was remitted to the Chief Accountant, Supreme Court on September 10, 2003. Also, Mrs.
Ramos opened an account at the Rural Bank of Aritao, Inc. for the Fiduciary Fund of the court instead of
maintaining an account with Landbank. Said account was closed on September 11, 2003 and an account was
opened at Landbank, Bambang on the same date. A comparison of the courts CCGF collections and remittances
for the period of November 1995 to July 2003 revealed a shortage of P510.00. Mr. Esconde incurred during his
incumbency a cash shortage of P430.00 while Mrs. Ramos incurred a shortage of P80.00 as of July 31, 2003. From
August 2003 to June 5, 200[4] Mrs. Ramos incurred a shortage of P430.00. She deposited the amount of P400.00
on August 23, 2004 leaving a shortage of P30.00. Withdrawals from the Fiduciary Fund account on various dates,
totaling P243,900.00 for the refund and return of cash bonds to 20 litigants, were not supported by any official
court orders. Of the 20 litigants 15 did not acknowledge receipt of the amount refunded. The Fiduciary Fund
collection of the court from April 1996 to August 31, 2003 amounted to P2,064,978.00. As of August 31, 2003,
however, the amount of P846,710.00 was unaccounted for by Mr. Esconde and Mrs. Ramos. Both denied that the
shortages incurred were of their own doing and they instead pointed to Judge Balut as the offender. [8]
Ramos related to the audit team the constant requests/orders of Judge Balut to hand over to him money
from the Fiduciary Fund collections. In these instances, she requested Judge Balut to affix his signature at the back
portion of the withdrawal slips as the cash recipient. However, not all of the transactions were evidenced by an

acknowledgement receipt. Ramos further stated that Judge Balut also collected the money through Salvador
Briones, Court Interpreter of MCTC-Aritao-Sta. Fe, whose signature also appeared at the back portion of
withdrawal slips as cash recipient. The total withdrawals from the Fiduciary Fund Account given to Judge Balut, as
evidenced by withdrawal slips bearing the signatures of Judge Balut and Briones, for the benefit of the former, as
cash recipients, amounted to P193,500.00.
Aside from these, withdrawals from the Fiduciary Fund account totaling P90,500.00 were also given to
Judge Balut. On the face of the slips of this class of withdrawals were notations such as Judge, for Judge, taken by
Judge xxx and given to Judge written by Ramos.
On May 9, 2002 Judge Balut issued a Certification[9] stating that his accountability with the Fiduciary Fund
collection of MCTC Aritao-Sta. Fe as of April 2002 amounted to P207,774.42.
However,

before

the

final

report

on

the

courts

shortages

was

completed,

various

amounts

totaling P802,299.82 were deposited by Judge Balut, Esconde and Ramos in the courts LBP Account No. 32510544-51, as restitution/payment of part of the shortage of P846,710.00.
As of August, 2004, Ramos had fully settled the balance of her accountability. On the other hand, Esconde
still had a balance of accountability in MCTC, Aritao-Sta. Fe ofP58,100.00 which, as of the time this case was
submitted by the OCA for the Courts consideration, has remained unsettled.
Finding the respective explanations of Judge Balut, Salimpade, Esconde and Ramos unsatisfactory, the OCA
recommended to this Court on March 17, 2005 that:
A. [The OCA] report be docketed as a regular administrative matter against Judge Alexander Balut,
Clerk of Court Judith En. Salimpade, Clerk of Court Lydia Ramos and Clerk of Court Eduardo
Esconde.
B. Judge Alexander Balut be DISMISSED from the service for gross neglect of duty, gross
inefficiency, dishonesty and grave misconduct with forfeiture of all of the benefits and
disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government
owned or controlled corporation.
C. Ms. Judith En. Salimpade be DISMISSED from the service for dishonesty and grave misconduct
and directed to restitute the amount of P1,817,378.59 representing the amount of shortages in
her collections. The Office of Administrative Services, OCA be directed to compute Ms.
Salimpades leave credits and forward the same to the Finance Division, Fiscal Management
Office-OCA which shall compute the money value of the same, the amount to be deducted from
the computed shortages to be restituted.
D. Legal Office, OCA be directed to file appropriate criminal charges against Judge Alexander Balut,
Ms. Lydia O. Ramos, and Ms. Judith En. Salimpade.
E. A hold departure order be issued against Ms. Judith Salimpade and Eduardo Esconde and Judge
Alexander Balut.
F. Mrs. Lydia Ramos be DIRECTED to pay the amount of P30.00 representing her shortage in the
collection of Clerk of Court General Fund, submitting copy of the machine validated deposit slip
to the Fiscal Monitoring Division, CMO and be FINED in the amount of P5,000.00 for violation of
Supreme Court and OCA Circulars which shall be deducted from her retirement benefits.
G. Mr. Eduardo Esconde be immediately relieved as accountable officer of MTC Solano and he be
directed to restitute the shortages in the fiduciary fund account in the amount of P58,000.00,
when he was Clerk of Court of the MCTC, Aritao-Sta. Fe, Nueva Vizcaya, submitting the machine
validated deposit slip to the Financial Monitoring Division, CMO. [10]

In its March 1, 2006 Memorandum[11] to the Court, however, the OCA adjusted its findings and recommended
that:

A.

In the matter of the audits conducted in the MTCs of Bayombong and Solano and MCTC AritaoSta. Fe, Nueva Vizcaya, Judge Alexander S. Balut be fined P10,000.00, with the stern warning
that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

B.

The recommendations as to the other court personnel involved stand as per the Memorandum
to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. dated 17 March 2005.[12]

We agree with the recommendations of the OCA with some modifications.

The records show that Judge Balut failed to decide 33 cases [13] and resolve 101 pending motions/incidents
within the required period.
From his explanation of having to conduct hearings in practically a different court sala for each day of the
week, the Court can appreciate that Judge Balut had a heavy workload. However, he cannot be totally excused
from liability. A heavy workload due to additional work, as acting presiding judge in other courts, is not sufficient
justification for the delay.[14] Judges are allowed, upon motion or letter-request, extensions of the reglementary
period in deciding cases.[15] Judge Balut should have sought an extension for the resolution of the cases before the
mandated time for their resolution expired. Likewise, we note that Judge Balut indeed made a general request
for exemption from compliance with the mandated reglementary period to decide cases but notably, he did not
specify the case numbers, case titles and how much time he needed to finish the cases.Such a request was
irregular and could not be the basis for absolving him. Cases age at different times; hence, the need to specify the
particular case for which the extension is being requested. A definite date for extension will also help the judge
and the Court to gauge how long a reasonable extension would be. Likewise, the judge can also concretely plan
how much time he should spend on deciding each case. This encourages proper time management and the
orderly administration of justice. A general request for exemption embracing all cases would provide judges a
catch-all excuse for neglecting to decide; or worse, choosing not to decide by reason of money or malice, any
case at all. Thus, a request for an all-embracing exemption should not spare a judge from administrative sanction
for failing to decide cases on time.
Neither can we accept Judge Baluts excuse that he had no legal researcher. He had only to request from
the Executive Judge or the Office of the Court Administrator the detail of needed researchers instead of allowing a
vacancy, or leave of absence of his staff, to deprive the public of vital services, especially where the court has an
unusually heavy caseload for a given period. [16]
The Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly because delay in the
disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings
it into disrepute.[17]
For failing to decide 33 cases and 101 motions/incidents within the required period, without properly
requesting for an extension, Judge Balut should be penalized. Undue delay in rendering decisions is classified as a
less serious charge under Section 9, [18] Rule 140 of the Rules of Court for which the sanction prescribed is
suspension from office without salary for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or a fine of more
than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. A fine of P20,000.00 should be proper under the circumstances.
Now, as to the financial audit.
Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 8A-93 [19] provides the guidelines for all Clerks of Court
concerning the proper administration of court funds. This Circular mandates that all fiduciary collections shall be
deposited immediately by the Clerk of Court concerned, upon receipt thereof, with the Land Bank of
the Philippines, the authorized government depository bank.

Furthermore, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5-93 [20] provides that collections for the JDF shall
be deposited everyday with the local or nearest branch of the Land Bank of the Philippines. If depositing daily was
not possible, deposits for the judiciary fund shall be every second and third Fridays and at the end of every
month. In case the collections reached P500.00, the same shall be deposited immediately even before the days
indicated.
As the acting/duly appointed presiding judge, Judge Balut had the responsibility of seeing to it that the
respective clerks of court in his different court assignments performed their duties and observed the circulars issued
by the Supreme Court. In Report on the Financial Audit in RTC, General Santos City and the RTC & MTC of
Polomolok, South Cotabato[21] the Court held:
Indeed, clerks of court are the chief administrative officers of their respective courts; with
regard to the collection of legal fees, they perform a delicate function as judicial officers entrusted
with the correct and effective implementation of regulations thereon. Even the undue delay in the
remittances of amounts collected by them at the very least constitutes misfeasance.On the other
hand, a vital administrative function of a judge is the effective management of his
court[,] and this includes control of the conduct of the court's ministerial officers. It
should be brought home to both that the safekeeping of funds and collections is essential to the
goal of 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.
[22]
(Emphasis supplied.)

The records show, prima facie, that Judge Balut dismally failed to discharge his responsibility. Worse, by
borrowing money from the court funds, he knowingly made the clerks of court violate circulars on the proper
administration of court funds. However, considering that Judge Balut was not given proper opportunity to explain
his side on the results of the financial audit, we cannot, in the present case, justly rule on any administrative
liability that he may have incurred.
Nevertheless, his signatures on the withdrawal slips as recipient of the cash withdrawn from the funds with
MCTC, Aritao-Sta. Fe, and on the deposit slips; the certification which he made regarding his accountability; the
certifications made by the involved clerks of court to the effect that he had settled his accountabilities, when
taken with the statements of Salimpade, Esconde and Ramos that he asked for and was handed sums of money
from the funds in their custody, constitute sufficient basis for the initiation of criminal cases against him, in
particular for violation of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(a). [23]
As to the liabilities of Judith En. Salimpade. As of August 31, 2003, Salimpade incurred shortages
totaling P2,057,378.59. She confessed to giving in to the requests of Judge Balut for money, which she however
failed

to

document. She

also

admitted

to

taking

money

from

her

collections

to

lend

to

her

co-

employees. Undeniably, she failed to comply with the circulars of the court requiring the immediate deposit of
collections for the various funds in her custody. She treated court funds as if these were her own and did with these
as she pleased. This Court cannot tolerate or condone such conduct. As custodians of court funds and revenues,
clerks of court have always been reminded of their duty to immediately deposit the various funds received by them
to the authorized government depositories for they are not supposed to keep the funds in their custody. [24] Failure to
do so constitutes gross neglect of duty, dishonesty and grave misconduct, [25] which offenses carry with them the
penalty of dismissal from office. The said failure also constitutes sufficient basis for the initiation of a criminal case
against her for malversation, as defined under Article 217[26] of the Revised Penal Code.
As to Eduardo Esconde. The OCA recommends that the administrative sanction against him be held in
abeyance until full financial audit of his books of account in Solano has been undertaken, so that his full
accountability can be established. We agree with OCA on the need for a full financial audit. However, with regard
to administrative liability, we find the evidence on record sufficient for us to make a decision.

In the MTC, Solano, Esconde incurred a shortage of P106,527.80, which he deposited only on August 28,
2003. In the MCTC, Aritao-Sta. Fe, he incurred a shortage ofP472,900.00 in the Fiduciary Fund and restituted
only P414,800.00 on October 28, 2003. He, thus still has unsettled accountabilities of P58,100.00. Esconde claims
Judge Balut borrowed money from the court funds. Clearly, on this score, he violated Court directives on the proper
administration of the various funds. He had no authority to allow anyone, not even his superior, to use or borrow the
court funds for personal purposes. To repeat, as clerk of court, he has the responsibility to deposit all collections
upon receipt thereof with the authorized government depository bank [27] and to see to it that withdrawals are made
only for the purposes stated in the Court circulars. Failure to fulfill these responsibilities constitutes gross neglect of
duty which deserves administrative sanction. Aside from being the custodian of the courts funds and revenues,
property and premises, a clerk of court is also entrusted with the primary responsibility of correctly and effectively
implementing regulations regarding fiduciary funds.[28] Under the Civil Service Rules and the Omnibus Rules
implementing it, gross neglect of duty is penalized with dismissal from the service.
As in the case of Salimpade, Escondes failure to turn over the funds in his custody and to adequately
explain and present evidence thereon constitutes sufficient basis for the initiation of a criminal case against him
for malversation.
Lastly, we discuss the liability of Lydia Ramos. The audit showed discrepancies between the reported total
collections and the actual amount remitted to the Clerk of Court General Fund. Likewise, it revealed shortages in
the Fiduciary Fund account. Although Ramos settled the shortages, she is nevertheless still administratively
liable[29] for the violations of Supreme Court Administrative Circulars Nos. 5-93 and 8A-93. Delay in the remittance
of collections constitutes neglect of duty for which she is administratively liable. The failure to remit judiciary
collections on time deprives the court of interest that may be earned if the amounts are deposited in a bank.
[30]

However, in determining the applicable penalty in this case, the Court noted that Ramos made the earnest

efforts to properly administer the funds in her custody; that she fully remitted all her collections; that she has no
outstanding accountabilities; that she has already retired last June 5, 2004; and for humanitarian considerations,
[31]

we deem a fine of P5,000.00 sufficient penalty.[32]

WHEREFORE the Court finds and declares:
1. Judge Alexander S. Balut GUILTY of undue delay in deciding 33 cases submitted for decision and in

failing to resolve 101 motions within the 90-day reglementary period. He is FINED twenty thousand pesos
(P20,000.00), with a stern warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely.
2. Judith En. Salimpade GUILTY of gross neglect of duty, dishonesty and grave misconduct. She
is DISMISSED from the service. She is DIRECTED to RESTITUTEthe amount of P1,817,378.59 representing the
amount of shortages in her collections. Her withheld salaries are to be applied to her accountabilities. The Office
of Administrative Services, OCA is DIRECTED to compute Ms. Salimpades leave credits and forward the same to
the Finance Division, Fiscal Management Office-OCA which shall compute the money value of the same, the
amount to be deducted from the shortages to be restituted.
3. Eduardo

Esconde GUILTY of

gross

neglect

of

duty. He

is DISMISSED from

the

service. He

is

also ORDERED to restitute his accountabilities in the amount ofP58,100.00

4. Lydia O. Ramos GUILTY of neglect of duty. She is FINED P5,000, which should be deducted from her
retirement benefits.
The Office of the Court Administrator Legal Office is DIRECTED to file appropriate criminal charges against
Judge Alexander Balut, Judith En. Salimpade and Eduardo Esconde.

SO ORDERED.