Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
OFFICE OF THE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant, -
versus - Atty. ROSARIO E. GASPAR,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Balanga City, Bataan, Respondent. |
A.M. No.
P-07-2325 (Formerly A.M. No. 06-3-208-RTC)
Present: *CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson, **BRION, Acting Chairperson, BERSAMIN, ***ABAD, VILLARAMA,
JR., and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: February 28, 2011 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
D
E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
We resolve the administrative charge against Atty.
Rosario E. Gaspar, Branch Clerk of
Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 2, Balanga City, for gross neglect of duty for failing to issue the
writs of execution in court judgments rendered against forfeited surety bonds.
The charge arose out of the physical
inventory of cash, property and surety bonds conducted on February 20 to 25,
2006 by the audit team of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in Branches 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the
RTC in Bataan. The audit team found the following lapses in procedure committed
by the respective Officers-in-Charge Branch Clerks of Court[1] and the Branch Clerks of Courts[2]
(respondents) of the audited RTC branches: first, the failure of the respondents to
comply with A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC regarding the new guidelines on the documentary
requirements for surety bail bond applications; and second, the failure of the respondents to issue the corresponding
writs of execution on cancelled or forfeited bail bonds.
We initially referred the
matter to the OCA for investigation, report and recommendation.[3]
We also directed the respondents to file their comments and ordered them to
issue the corresponding writs of execution on the forfeited surety bonds.[4]
In their respective
Comments, the respondents commonly claimed the lack of knowledge of A.M. No.
04-7-02-SC. They asserted that they came
to know the existence of this guideline during the audit of February 20 to 25,
2006. The respondents for Branches 1, 2
(Atty. Gaspar) and 3 also asserted that in multiple sala courts, the
applications for surety bonds were processed by Atty. Romeo Delemos of the Office
of the Clerk of Court. The respondents offered their respective explanations
and apologies on the second charge.
In its Report and
Recommendation, the OCA made the following recommendations:
1.
The (sic) respondents Gilbert A. Argonza,
Margarita R. Quicho, Rovelyn B. Baluyot and Joey Astorga we absolved of
administrative liability in connection with the non-issuance of the Writs of
Execution in the criminal cases mentioned in the audit report. However, for representing that the surety
bond for the accused in Criminal Case No. 8780, RTC, Branch 1, Balanga City had
expired on September 20, 2003 which is not borne by the surety bond itself
attached as Annex C to his Letter Explanation, Mr. Astorga should be admonished
to be more careful in the discharge of his duties and in his official
communications specially to the Supreme Court.
2.
Respondent
Rosario E. Gaspar be FINED in the amount of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00)
for neglect of duty in issuing the writs of execution in Criminal [Case] Nos.
8333 and 8194, RTC, Branch 2, Balanga City, only on August 4, 2006 when the
judgments against the bonds in the cases were rendered almost 2 years earlier.
3.
All the
respondents be absolved of liability for non-compliance with A.M. No.
04-7-02-SC in connection with the corporate surety bonds posted in the criminal
cases enumerated in the audit report, for lack of “working information on the new guidelines” as found by the audit
team.
4.
Atty. Romeo
Delemos, Clerk of Court of the RTC, Balanga City, be furnished a copy of the
audit report and required to explain why administrative action should not be
taken against him for non-compliance with A.M. No. 04-7-02-SC.
Except for Atty. Gaspar, the Court resolved to adopt the above recommendations and absolved the respondents from any administrative liability. Thereafter, we charged Atty. Gaspar with neglect of duty based on the Report and Recommendation of the OCA considering her admission that she overlooked and/or inadvertently failed to issue the writs of execution.[5] In the Minute Resolution dated June 13, 2007, we declared:
(2) RE-DOCKET the instant
case as a regular administrative matter against respondent Rosario Gaspar;
(3) to require Rosario
Gaspar to MANIFEST within ten (10) days from notice hereof if she is
willing to submit the case for decision on the basis of the records and
pleadings filed;
Atty. Gaspar does not deny
her shortcomings but pleads that a lighter penalty be imposed than what the OCA
recommended in view of the following circumstances: (a) she was a new employee
at the time of the incidents complained of, and was not familiar with the case
records; (b) the order for cancellation and forfeiture of the bond in Criminal
Case No. 8333 did not specifically mention the issuance of the writ of
execution; (c) she did not believe that there was an immediate need to issue
the writ of execution in the case since the bondsmen were given three (3) days
to produce the accused in court instead of the thirty (30)-day statutory period; and (d) the writ of execution against the surety in
Criminal Case No. 8194 was issued just over six (6) months from the date of the
order and not two (2) years as reported by the judicial audit team.
OUR RULING
Except for the recommended penalty, we agree with the
findings and recommendations of the OCA and hold Atty. Gaspar liable for simple
neglect of duty.
Section 1, Canon IV of the
Code of Conduct for Court Personnel commands court personnel to perform their
official duties properly and with diligence at all times. As the image of the courts, as the administrators
and dispensers of justice, is not only reflected in their decisions,
resolutions or orders but also mirrored in the conduct of court personnel, it
is incumbent upon every court personnel to observe the highest degree of
efficiency and competency in his or her assigned tasks. The failure to meet
these standards warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions.
In this
case, the duty of Atty. Gaspar, as Branch Clerk of Court, to issue the
corresponding writs of execution to implement judgments of forfeiture against
surety bonds is expressly provided in the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of
Court. The records of the case and Atty. Gaspar’s own admission show that she
fell short of complying with the above standard. She failed to efficiently
perform her duty to immediately issue the writs of execution in Criminal Case
No. 8333 and Criminal Case No. 8194. The
records show that Atty. Gaspar issued the writs of execution in these criminal
cases more than two (2) years after the judgments were issued against the
forfeited surety bonds. In Criminal Case
No. 8333, the judgment against the surety bond was rendered on April 24, 2003
and the writ of execution to implement the same was issued by Atty. Gaspar only
on August 6, 2006. In Criminal Case No. 8194, the RTC rendered judgment against
the surety bond as early as June 8, 2004 when the bondsman failed to produce
the accused in court. Atty. Gaspar issued the writ of execution only on August
6, 2006.
We find her liable for
simple neglect of duty, bearing in mind our ruling in Ligaya V. Reyes v. Mario Pablico, etc.[6]
where we defined simple neglect of duty as the failure of an employee to give
proper attention to a required task or to discharge a duty due to carelessness
or indifference. As distinguished from gross neglect of duty which is
characterized by want of even the slightest care, or by conscious indifference
to the consequences, or by flagrant and palpable breach of duty, there is
nothing in the records to show that Atty. Gaspar willfully and intentionally
omitted to issue the subject writs of execution.[7]
On the contrary, she candidly admitted
that her omissions were caused by plain oversight. She also undertook immediate rectification in
compliance with our directives, thereby demonstrating her sincerity and lack of
malice in committing her lapses.
Simple neglect of duty under
Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service
is classified as a less grave offense, punishable
by suspension without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months
for the first offense. However, under Section 19, Rule XIV of the
Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, a fine may be
imposed instead of the penalty of suspension.[8] The OCA recommended that
Atty. Gaspar be fined in the amount of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00). We modify this recommendation and
reduce the amount of the fine to P1,500.00, considering Atty. Gaspar’s candid admission of her
lapses and her apologies.[9]
ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, Atty.
Rosario E. Gaspar, Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Balanga City, Bataan,
is FINED in the amount of One
Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for simple neglect of duty in failing to
immediately issue the writs of execution of court judgments rendered on
forfeited surety bonds. She is hereby WARNED
that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more
severely.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO
D. BRION
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
(on wellness leave)
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
|
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate Justice |
MARIA
LOURDES P.A. SERENO Associate Justice |
* On wellness leave.
** Designated Acting Chairperson of the Third Division per Special Order No. 925 dated January 24, 2011.
***Designated additional Member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 926 dated January 24, 2011.
[1] They are (1) Mr. Gilbert S. Argonza for RTC-Branch 1, Balanga City, Bataan; (2) Mrs. Margarita H. Quicho for RTC-Branch 3, Balanga City, Bataan; and (3) Mr. Joey A. Astorga for RTC-Branch 5, Dinalupihan, Bataan.
[2] They are (1) Atty. Gaspar; and (2) Atty. Rovelyn B. Baluyot for RTC-Branch 4, Mariveles, Bataan.
[3] Minute Resolution dated September 20, 2006; rollo, p. 97.
[4] Minute Resolution dated July 5, 2006; id. at 20-25.
[5] Page 15 of the OCA Report and Recommendation.
[6] A.M.
No. P-06-2109, November 27, 2006, 508 SCRA
146.
[7] Brucal v. Desierto, G.R. No. 152188, July
8, 2005, 463 SCRA 151.
[8] Sec. 19. The penalty of transfer, or demotion, or fine may be imposed instead of suspension from one (1) day to one (1) year except in case of fine which shall not exceed six (6) months.
[9] Seangio v. Parce, A.M. No. P-06-2252, July 9, 2007, 527 SCRA 24.