THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-02-1559. May 28, 2002]
ROSARIO S. PANUNCIO, complainant, vs. OSCAR T. ESPIRITU, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City, Branch 165, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This administrative case
originated from a case filed with the Office of the Ombudsman, docketed as
OMB-0-94-4239 and entitled “Rosario S. Panuncio vs. Morrel Callueng, et al.”
for violation of R.A. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) and unlawful
arrest allegedly committed by the respondents therein, who are agents of the
National Bureau of Investigation (“NBI” for brevity), in connection with a
criminal case (No. CCC-VII-3359-Rizal) for Murder pending before the Regional
Trial Court of Pasig (“RTC-Pasig” for short), Branch 165. The Office of the
Ombudsman dismissed OMB-0-94-4239 but found through its Fact-Finding and
Intelligence Bureau that the records of
the Criminal Case No. CCC-VII-3359-Rizal could no longer be located. The Office
of the Ombudsman therefore, recommended that Oscar Espiritu, the criminal
records custodian of the RTC-Pasig, Branch 165, be charged with the crime of
Infidelity in the Custody of Documents for the loss of the records of Criminal
Case No. CCC-VII-3359-Rizal.
The Facts
From the records, it
appears that herein complainant Rosario Panuncio was arrested on November 17,
1994 by NBI agents by virtue of a warrant of arrest dated March 1, 1989 issued
by the RTC-Pasig, Branch 165 in Criminal Case No. CCC-VII-3359-Rizal. Panuncio
was able to produce a copy of the Order dated April 4, 1989 issued by the same
court recalling the warrant of arrest it earlier issued. To clarify the matter,
the NBI agents brought Panuncio to the RTC-Pasig, Branch 165 but the records of
Criminal Case No. CCC-VII-3359-Rizal could not be located by respondent Oscar
Espiritu (“Espiritu” for brevity), the custodian of the criminal records in
said court. Upon verification in the docket book of the Prosecutor’s Office,
the NBI agents were informed that the criminal case had been dismissed as early
as July 26, 1989. Hence, Panuncio was released from detention in the afternoon
of November 17, 1994. As a consequence, Panuncio filed a case before the Office
of the Ombudsman against the NBI agents for unlawfully arresting her and for
allegedly attempting to extort money from her. The case was docketed as
OMB-0-94-4239 which was eventually dismissed but the Fact-Finding and
Intelligence Bureau (“Bureau” for brevity)) of the Office of the Ombudsman was
tasked to investigate the loss of the case records of Criminal Case No.
CCC-VII-3359-Rizal. This matter was re-docketed as OMB-098-877. On April 7,
1998, the Office of the Ombudsman approved the report and recommendation of the
Bureau that Oscar Espiritu, the criminal
records custodian of the RTC-Pasig, Branch 165, be charged with the
crime of Infidelity in the Custody of
Documents for the loss of the records of Criminal Case No. CCC-VII-3359-Rizal.
On June 2, 1998, the Office of the Ombudsman issued a resolution referring the
case to this Court on the ground that respondent Oscar Espiritu is a court
employee holding the position of Clerk III. Hence, this administrative matter.
On January 30, 2001, the
Office of the Court Administrator required respondent Espiritu to submit his
comment.
In his Comment dated
March 16, 2001, respondent Espiritu admits that he is charged with the custody
of the records of all criminal cases and that indeed the records of Criminal
Case No. CCC-VII-3359-Rizal could no longer be located. He surmises, however,
that the said records might have been lost during their transfer from their
former sala at Eulogio Rodriguez Bldg. to the new Hall of Justice, Provincial
Capitol Compound, Pasig City sometime in November 1991. He adds that the
records of cases were kept in cabinets without locks so that anyone can just
retrieve the records without him knowing it. Respondent Espiritu further avers
that he did not intend to remove or destroy said records and neither could he
profit from said disappearance.
OCA Report
and Recommendation
The Office of the Court
Administrator (“OCA” for short) submitted a Report recommending that respondent
Espiritu be fined in the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for
neglect of duty, with a warning that a similar offense shall be dealt with more
severely. The Court Administrator opined that the loss of the records of
Criminal Case No. CCC-VII-3359-Rizal leads to no other conclusion than that
respondent Espiritu, being charged with the safekeeping of the records, was
remiss in the performance of his duties.
The Court’s
Ruling
We agree with the
findings and conclusions of the OCA and hereby approve the recommendation that
respondent Espiritu be meted a fine in the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00).
It is a well-settled rule
that as an officer of the court, respondent is expected to discharge his duty
of safekeeping court records with diligence, efficiency and professionalism.[1] Consonant with his
duty of safekeeping the records of cases is the bounden duty to see to it that
the records are kept in secure places.
Respondent Espiritu
attributes the loss of the records of Criminal Case No. CCC-VII-3359-Rizal to
the fact that they transferred sala and that the cabinets where he keeps the
records have no locks. This is untenable.
The fact of transfer of
sala to a new building is not a valid excuse to be remiss in the performance of
his duty. Respondent should have adopted measures to safely transfer all
records and to see to it that the place where these records are kept are
secure. He should have provided locks for the cabinets where these records are
kept or, if this would be financially
burdensome, at least inform his superior, the clerk of court, or the presiding
judge of his predicament so that appropriate measures could be taken. Nowhere
in the records does it show that respondent even attempted to seek assistance
from the clerk of court or presiding judge for the proper security and safety
of court records. Indeed, he failed to exercise due diligence and efficiency in
the discharge of his duty of safekeeping court records.
It should be borne in
mind that court records are confidential documents which must not be taken out
of the court without proper authority and without the necessary safeguards to
ensure their confidentiality and integrity.[2] The rule is settled
that those involved in the administration of justice must live up to the
strictest standard of honesty and integrity in the public service.[3] Every employee or
officer involved in the dispensation of justice should be circumscribed with
the heavy burden of responsibility and their conduct must at all times be above
suspicion.[4] As officer of the
court, respondent is therefore expected to discharge his duty of safekeeping
court records with due diligence.
For lack of satisfactory
explanation in failing to use reasonable skill and diligence in the performance
of his officially designated duties, respondent Espiritu must face the
consequences. His neglect of duty warrants administrative sanction.
WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Court Administrator,
respondent Oscar Espiritu, Clerk III of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City,
Branch 154 is hereby FINED in the amount of One Thousand (P1,000.00)
Pesos for neglect of duty. He is further warned that a repetition of the same
or similar act shall be dealt with more severely by this Court.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman),
Vitug, and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J.,
on leave.