THIRD DIVISION
|
JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO, Complainant, -
versus - MS. MARILOU C. MARTIN, Legal Researcher,
OIC-Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 268, Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-07-2349
(formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2534-P) Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO,
and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: August 10, 2007 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U T I O N
NACHURA, J.:
Before this Court is a Sworn Complaint[1]
filed by complainant Atty. Joseph Anthony M. Alejandro (complainant) against
Ms. Marilou C. Martin, Legal Researcher, OIC-Clerk of Court, Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 268,
Complainant alleges that he received
reliable information that the house of the respondent and her family located at
Complainant also alleges that
respondent did not file the required Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL)
for the years 2004 and 2005.
Finally, complainant accuses
respondent of incompetence in the performance of her duties and
responsibilities as clerk of court of the RTC.
Complainant asseverates that Section 10, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that it is the duty of the clerk of court
to transmit the records of a case to the appellate court within thirty (30)
days after perfection of appeal. In SCA
Case No. 2742,[2]
the appeal was perfected on
In her Comment,[5]
respondent argues that she does not own any property of substantial value, and
she is still living with her parents.
She asserts that the Ford Lynx car aforementioned was bought by her
father on installment basis and is still mortgaged to a bank.
Respondent denies the allegation of
non-filing of the required SAL for the years 2004 and 2005, and even submitted
copies[6]
thereof, evidencing her compliance with the legal requirement.
However, respondent admits that the
transmittal of the records of SCA Case No. 2742 to the CA was delayed. She claims that the delay was caused by the
Clerk-In-Charge who prepared the Letter of Transmittal,[7]
Table of Contents[8]
and Index of Exhibits[9]
of said case which consist of five (5) volumes. Respondent further argues that she
had no intention of disregarding the rules, and this transmittal was only
delayed because she and the Clerk-In-Charge also had to attend to some equally
important tasks in court every day.
In its Evaluation,[10]
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that the complainant failed
to substantiate the charge of unexplained wealth against the respondent.
Moreover, the OCA found that respondent complied with the requirement for the
submission of her SAL. However, the OCA opined that the respondent was remiss
in the performance of her duty particularly in the transmittal of the records
of SCA Case No. 2742 to the CA. Thus, the OCA recommended that respondent be
fined in the amount of P3,000.00 with an admonition
that she should be more diligent and circumspect in the performance of her
duties and a warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with
more severely.
After reviewing the records of this
case, we adopt the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
With respect to the charge of
unexplained wealth, it must be stressed that in administrative proceedings, the
quantum of proof required to establish a respondent's malfeasance is not proof
beyond reasonable doubt but substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion. More importantly, it is settled
that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of
substantiating the charges made in the complaint. The complainant has the
burden of proving the allegations in his complaint with substantial evidence.[11]
Indeed, if the respondent, as OIC-Clerk of Court, should be disciplined for the
grave offense of unexplained wealth, the evidence against her should be
competent and derived from direct knowledge. Charges based on mere suspicion
and speculation cannot be given credence. Hence, when the complainant relies on
mere conjectures and suppositions, and fails to substantiate his claim,[12]
as in this case, the charge must fail.
However, with respect to the charge of
incompetence, we give credence to and respect the OCA's findings. Thus:
Respondent, being the [OIC-Clerk of Court] of Branch 268, RTC, Pasig City, she is responsible for ensuring the efficient and timely recording, filing and over-all management of court records, including the safe-keeping of exhibits, documents and all properties of the said branch, subject only to the supervision and control of the Presiding Judge. The Court has held that Branch Clerks of Court are chiefly responsible for the shortcomings of subordinates to whom the administrative function pertaining to the Branch Clerk of Court were delegated. She should have utmost prudence in the performance of her functions as the [OIC-Clerk of Court] of the said Branch.
As such, respondent was indeed remiss
in the performance of her duty under Section 10, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court,
which provides:
Sec. 10. Duty of clerk of court of the lower court upon perfection of appeal. Within thirty (30) days after perfection of all the appeals in accordance with the preceding section, it shall be the duty of the clerk of court of the lower court:
x x x x
(d). To
transmit the records to the appellate court.
Respondent ought to know this
rule. Based on the records, the appeal
was given due course and the records were ordered elevated to the CA as early
as May 30, 2006, but the same were not transmitted within the thirty- day
period. Instead, the transmittal was made only on
We have emphasized, time and again,
the heavy burden and responsibility placed on court officials and employees, in
view of their exalted positions as keepers of the public faith. Any impression
of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of official functions
must be avoided. This Court shall not countenance any conduct, act or omission
on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice which would
violate the norm of public accountability and diminish the faith of the people
in the Judiciary.[13]
The clerk of court is a vital
component of the Judiciary. As an
officer of the court, she performs delicate administrative functions essential to
the speedy and proper administration of justice. Among the duties of the Branch
Clerk of Court is the prompt and orderly transmittal of appealed cases and the
records to the appellate court. The Branch Clerk of Court is responsible for
seeing to it that the records of appealed cases are properly sent to the
appropriate appellate court without delay, in order to ensure the timely disposition of cases. Otherwise, the speedy
administration of justice would be hampered.[14]
WHEREFORE,
finding respondent Ms. Marilou C. Martin remiss in her duties for the delay in
the transmittal of the records in SCA Case No. 2742 to the appellate court, she
is hereby FINED the amount of P3,000.00, with the ADMONITION that she should be more
diligent and circumspect in the performance of her duties, and a WARNING that a repetition of the same
offense shall be dealt with more severely.
SO
ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
[1] Dated
[2] Entitled Joseph Anthony Alejandro, plaintiff vs. Oakridge Properties, Inc. and
Discovery Centre Condominium Corporation, defendants.
[3] RTC Order dated
[4] Letter of Transmittal dated
[5] Dated
[6] Annexes A and B of
respondent's Comment.
[7] Annex C of respondent's Comment.
[8]
[9]
[10] Dated
[11] Alcover,
Sr. v. Bacatan, A.M. No. P-05-2043,
[12] Planas
v. Reyes, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1905,
[13] Obaρana, Jr. v. Ricafort, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1545,
[14] Osorio
v. Dizon, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1838,