|
ATTY. ERNESTO C. JACINTO ,
Complainant, - versus - JUDGE Respondents. |
A.M. No. RTJ-02-1743
Present:
PUNO, J., Chairperson Sandoval-Gutierrez, Azcuna, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
|
|
|
DECISION
|
|
|
|
|
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:
|
|
|
|
|
In a sworn letter-complaint[1]
dated August 7, 1999 filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA),
complainant Atty. Ernesto C. Jacinto charged respondents Judge Lydia Q. Layosa of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 217,
Quezon City, and Cheryl Buenaventura, Clerk III, of the same court, with infidelity
in the custody of public documents and/or gross neglect of duty.
Complainant alleged in his letter-complaint that he is
plaintiff’s counsel in Civil Case No. Q-95-23426, “REYNALDO P. MARTIN versus
MRS. RAQUEL U. AQUINO and HUSBAND,” raffled to the RTC, Branch 217,
When Judge Fernandez, Sr. died, Judge Demetrio
B. Macapagal, Sr. replaced him. The records of the same case did not also
get lost.
However, when respondent Judge Layosa
was appointed Presiding Judge of the same court, the entire records of the case “disappeared”
as shown by the May 14[2]
and June 1, 1999[3] Orders
issued by her, thus:
(1)
The
records of this case had been reported missing by the Branch Clerk of Court and
despite efforts exerted to locate it, said records could not be found.
Accordingly, let a conference be
held on
(2)
By agreement
of the parties, let the conference for the reconstitution of the records in
this case be reset on
Meanwhile, the continuation of trial set for today is
hereby suspended.
Complainant further alleged that both
respondents are guilty as charged.
On
She,
however, submitted that she cannot be held responsible for the loss of the case
records because: (a) she has not been
remiss in the performance of her duties and responsibilities; (b) she has been conducting the required
inventory of cases pursuant to the Circulars of this Court, and; (c) she has always been giving instructions
to her staff to take precautionary measures in safekeeping the records.
Moreover,
when respondent Cheryl L. Buenaventura, in charge of civil cases, verbally
informed her that the records of the case are missing, she immediately directed
Atty. Flosie Fanlo, then branch
clerk of court, to immediately take appropriate action.
On
On
On
On
Respondent
judge emphasized that she did not only take immediate steps to reconstitute the
missing records of the case, but she also requested the assistance of then
Court Administrator Benipayo[6] who,
in turn, requested the National Bureau of Investigation to investigate the matter.[7]
On
On
August 13, 2001, respondent judge filed with this Court a “Motion for Early
Resolution”[9] alleging,
among others, that during the hearing of the case on May 9, 2000, both counsels
failed to appear despite due notice. Hence, she issued an Order dismissing the
complaint and the counterclaim.
In his
Report,[10]
then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.[11] found
both respondents liable for the loss of the records; and that respondent judge
failed to supervise her personnel to ensure efficiency. He recommended that they
be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of P5,000.00 each, with a stern
warning that commission of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely,
thus:
EVALUATION: In the absence of any
direct evidence pointing responsibility to any of the respondents relative to
the loss of the records of Civil Case No. Q-95-23426, the persons responsible
for their safekeeping should be held accountable and they are the Branch Clerk
of Court, who is in charge of the recording, filing, and management of court
records as well as the Clerk-in-charge of civil cases to whom such task was
delegated by the Branch Clerk of Court.
Since Atty. Flosie F. Fanlo
has already transferred to another branch of the government, she is already
outside of the Courts administrative jurisdiction.
Respondent Cheryl Buenaventura, as the
clerk-in-charge of civil cases is undoubtedly the person who has custody of the
lost records and the one primarily responsible therefor. As the person in charge of the records of
civil cases, respondent
Although no motive to conceal, destroy or
otherwise profit from the loss of such records was imputed and proved against
respondent Buenaventura, it cannot be denied that the records were lost while
under her custody and she should be held responsible thereof.
On the other hand, it is the duty of the
respondent judge to closely supervise her employees. Civil Case No. 95-23426 was one of the
records of pending cases turned over to her by her Clerk of Court. She admitted that she did not know what
happened to said record until it was reported to her by Mrs. Buenaventura on
Judges should not tolerate the neglect of
court employees.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted to the
1. that
the administrative case against Atty. Flosie F. Fanlo, Ma. Cecilia A. Flores, Naomi Paden, Tonette S. Manjuco-Salamanca,
Ramona Adduro, Elizabeth Sugcang,
Carmen Labsan, Reynaldo Madelaria,
Reynaldo Manahan, Maritoni Oning,
serafin Corral and Josephine Fernandez be DISMISSED
for lack of merit;
2. that
the administrative case against respondent judge Lydia Q. Layosa
and Cheryl Buenaventura be REDOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;
3. that
Judge Layosa and
In our
Resolution[12] dated
November 25, 2002, we ordered that this case be re-docketed as a regular
administrative matter and required the parties to manifest, within twenty (20)
days from notice, whether they are submitting the case for resolution on the
basis of the pleadings and records filed.
On
On
Upon recommendation of then Deputy Court Administrator
Christopher O. Lock,[15]
this administrative case was referred to the Court of Appeals for investigation
and report within sixty (60) days from notice.
On
As the personnel directly charged with the safekeeping of
case records of civil cases pending in the sala, (page 55, ibid.)
however, respondent Buenaventura was manifestly negligent for not taking the
necessary precautionary/safety measures required by the sorry state of said
filing cabinets. The conduct and
behavior of every person connected with an office charged with the dispensation
of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk is circumscribed with
a heavy burden of responsibility (Araza vs.
Garcia, 325 SCRA 1, 9-10) in order to maintain public confidence in the
judiciary (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Branch 82, Odiongan, Romblon, 292 SCRA 1,7). Public officers are accountable for their
actuations at all times and must perform their duties well. (Solid Bank Corp.
v. Capoon, Jr., 289 SCRA 9, 14.
Neither can respondent judge evade liability for negligence
under the factual circumstances of the case.
The measures she interposed as proof positive of due diligence –
reporting the incident to the Court Administrator and requesting investigation
thereon, (p. 25; Exhibit “3”, p. 241, Rollo) directing her staff to adopt
safety measures in the custody of records, (Exhibit “6”, p. 238, ibid.)
and requesting for repairs and/or replacement of the defective cabinets (p.5,
TSN, January 23, 2004) – all appear to have been adopted only after the
discovery of the loss of the case record of Civil Case No. Q-95-23426 on
While it is concededly the Branch Clerk of Court who has
control and supervision over all court records, exhibits, documents, properties
and supplies within said branch, he is nevertheless subject to the control and
supervision of the Presiding Judge. (Yaranon
v. Rulloda, 242 SCRA 522, 528.) A judge is tasked with the administrative
supervision over his personnel and he should always see to it that his orders
are promptly enforced and that case records are properly stored. (Belen v. Soriano, 240 SCRA 298, 301) It is, therefore, incumbent upon the judge
to see to it that the personnel of the court perform their duties well and to
call the attention of the clerk of court when they fail to do so. (Ang Kek Chen v. Andrade, 318 SCRA 11, 20-21.)
Recommendation
PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is recommended
that both respondent judge and respondent P5,000.00
each, with a STERN WARNING that a similar non-observance of the due care
required by their positions will be dealt with more severely.
We agree with Justice
Salvador that both respondents are negligent; and that respondent judge failed
in her duty to see to it that her personnel perform their duties well. Such conduct on their part constitutes
misconduct. [16]
Misconduct is “a transgression of some
established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior
or gross negligence by a public officer.” The misconduct is grave if it involves any of
the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law
or to disregard established rules, which must be proved by substantial
evidence. Otherwise, the
misconduct is only simple.[17]
Records fail to indicate that those
additional elements are present here.
We, therefore, find both respondents
guilty of simple misconduct.
As the
clerk in charge of civil cases, respondent
On the part of respondent judge, considering her administrative authority over her personnel, she should have directed them, especially those in charge of safekeeping the records, to be diligent in the performance of their duties and should have closely monitored the flow of her cases.
Judges are charged with exercising extra care in ensuring that the records of the cases and official documents in their custody are intact. They must adopt a system of record management and organize their dockets in order to bolster the prompt and efficient dispatch of business.[18] There is no justification for missing records save fortuitous events.[19]
With respect to the imposition of penalty,
the Revised Rules of Court provides that simple misconduct is classified as a
less serious charge,[20] punishable by suspension
from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one month nor
more than three months; or a fine of more than P10,000.00, but not
exceeding P20,000.00.[21]
It
appearing that this is the first administrative offense committed by respondent
judge; that she has worked in the judiciary for more than 20 years; and that no
bad faith may be attributed to her, these circumstances may be considered
mitigating. Hence, a fine of P5,000.00
is in order.
As
to the penalty imposable upon respondent
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Lydia Q.
Layosa and respondent Cheryl Buenaventura are
declared guilty of simple misconduct.
Judge Layosa is FINED in the sum
of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), while respondent
SO ORDERED.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson |
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
CANCIO C. GARCIA Associate Justice |
|
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
Associate Justice
Chairperson,
Second Division
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-2.
[2] Annex “A,” id., p. 4.
[3] Annex “B,” id., p. 5.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Now an Associate Justice of this Court.
[12] Rollo, p. 173.
[13]
[14]
[15] Now Court Administrator.
[16] Atty. Leticia
[17] Civil Service Commission v. Juliana Ledesma, G.R. No. 154521, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA
589.
[18] Bernardo v. Judge Amelia A. Fabros, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1189,
[19] Sabitsana v. Villamor, RTJ No. 90-474, October 4, 1991, 202 SCRA 435, citing Longboan v. Polig, 186 SCRA 567 (1990).
[20] Section 9, Rule 140.
[21] Section 11, id.
[22] Section 52, B (1), Rule IV.