FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-21-021. September 14, 2021.][Formerly OCA-IPI No. 18-4857-P]
LEONORA D. KIM, complainant, vs. LARINA C. CERILLO, CLERK III and ROZANNO L. MORABE, PROCESS SERVER, BRANCH 23, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, TRECE MARTIRES CITY, CAVITE, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2021 which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-21-021 [Formerly OCA-IPI No. 18-4857-P] (Leonora D. Kim, complainant v. Larina C. Cerillo, Clerk III and Rozanno L. Morabe, Process Server, Branch 23, Regional Trial Court, Trece Martires City, Cavite, respondents).
Before this Court is the Sinumpaang Hablang Salaysay1 of Ms. Leonora D. Kim (complainant), charging Larina C. Cerillo (Cerillo), Clerk III and Rozanno L. Morabe (Morabe), Process Server of Regional Trial Court, Trece Martires City, Cavite, Branch 23 (RTC), for violations of Canon IV, Sections 1 and 2 of A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, 2 and Sections 4 (b) and 5 (d) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713. 3
Antecedents
Complainant is one of the defendants in Civil Case No. TMCV-023-14 for Specific Performance with Urgent Prayer for Issuance of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction filed before the RTC. 4
Prior to the scheduled hearing date on July 30, 2018, complainant went to the RTC to confirm whether it had received a copy of the Entry of Appearance and Omnibus Motion (subject pleading) filed by her new counsel. 5 Complainant initially approached Clerk of Court Atty. Maricel A. Roxas (Atty. Roxas) as regards the status of the subject pleading. Atty. Roxas thereafter inquired with Cerillo who confirmed that the subject pleading had already been received and filed with the records. 6
On the day of the hearing, Judge Jose I. Bautista, Jr. (Judge Bautista) noted the withdrawal of complainant's previous counsel and inquired from his staff whether they had received a motion from complainant or her counsel. The staff answered in the negative. Judge Bautista then ordered that the exhibits be admitted, the cross-examination of the plaintiff waived, and the case submitted for decision. 7
When Morabe approached complainant to sign the minutes, the latter inquired as to why the subject pleading was not taken up in open court. Both Morabe and the court interpreter, Jose Don Crisologo (Crisologo), were surprised and asked complainant whether she had filed a motion. Complainant asked Morabe and Crisologo to look for the said subject pleading but they informed her that no motion had been filed. Upon complainant's insistence, Atty. Roxas once again asked Cerillo regarding the subject pleading; however, the latter denied receiving anything from complainant's new counsel. 8 CAIHTE
Complainant was thereafter informed by her new counsel that it was Cerillo who personally received the RTC's copy of the subject pleading. 9 Based on the certification from the courier, the document was "released to Cerillo" on July 24, 2018. 10 When complainant confronted Cerillo about the latter's receipt of the subject pleading, Cerillo passed the blame on Morabe, since he was the clerk responsible for civil cases, and said that she had placed the subject pleading on his table together with the courier's certification. 11
Cerillo and Morabe (collectively, respondents) proceeded to search for the subject pleading and found the same unopened under Morabe's cabinet. Complainant then urged respondents to immediately open the said subject pleading in hopes that it could still be taken up with Judge Bautista. Morabe raised his voice and asked complainant to be patient as it was not only her case that they were handling. 12 Morabe subsequently asked complainant when Atty. Elvin P. Grana (Atty. Grana), counsel for the plaintiff, received the said subject pleading, to which complainant replied that it was received on July 23, 2018. Morabe then proceeded to stamp the RTC's copy of the subject pleading as received on July 25, 2018. 13
Complainant requested the staff to give her an opportunity to speak with Judge Bautista to properly explain what happened, but she was advised to do so after all the cases had been called and heard. The hearing eventually ended without the court staff assisting complainant or calling Judge Bautista's attention to complainant's concern. When complainant finally had the opportunity to explain the situation to Judge Bautista, he remarked that the court staff were to blame for the mishap. 14
In the Joint Comment 15 filed by respondents on October 18, 2018, they did not deny that they misplaced the subject pleading and left it unaccounted. However, they argued that their lapse was primarily due to their volume of work. They maintained that they could not be considered as negligent since they immediately searched for the subject pleading upon confirming that it had indeed been filed. They also claimed that in their more than 20 years of service with the judiciary (Cerillo as civil clerk since February 1997, and Morabe as process server since March 1988), they had never been accused of negligence in the performance of their duties. 16
In its Memorandum 17 dated December 29, 2020, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that respondents did not violate Canon IV, Secs. 1 and 2 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, as the Sinumpaang Hablang Salaysay did not show that respondents failed to devote themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours. 18 The OCA likewise ruled that respondents cannot be held liable for violation of Sec. 5 (d) of the Code of Conduct of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees as they were able to immediately act on complainant's transaction upon notice. 19
However, the OCA found that respondents violated Sec. 4 (b) of the Code of Conduct Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, as they failed to exhibit the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence, and skill in the discharge of their simplest duty to record and file the pleadings they had received. The OCA noted that Cerillo was remiss in passing the blame on Morabe, while Morabe caused prejudice to the complainant when he failed to diligently look into any unopened filings. The OCA also found it improper that Morabe had indicated that the subject pleading was received at a date later than when it was actually received. 20 In view of the mitigating circumstance of first offense and respondents' length of service, the OCA made the following recommendation:
It is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that:
xxx xxx xxx
2. respondents Larina C. Cerillo, Clerk III and Rozanno L. Morabe, Process Server, both of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Trece Martires City, Cavite, be found GUILTY of violation of Section [4(b)] of R.A. No. 6713; and be FINED in the amount of [P]5,000.00 each with a STERNWARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely. 21
The Court's Ruling
The Court adopts the recommendation of the OCA.
This Court agreed with the OCA in finding that respondents did not violate Sec. 2, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel 22 and Sec. 5 (d) of the Code of Conduct of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. 23 Sec. 2, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct of Court Personnel requires court personnel to be courteous at all times, while Sec. 5 (d) of the Code of Conduct of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees requires that public officials act immediately on the public's transactions.
A reading of the Sinumpaang Hablang Salaysay reveals that Morabe's alleged discourteous treatment towards complainant may be considered as a distressed or anxious response to complainant's request to hasten the search for the subject pleading. 24 Based on the circumstances, the Court does not deem the same as a violation of Sec. 2 of the Code of Conduct of Court Personnel. An employee of the judiciary is expected to accord respect for the person and rights of others at all times, and his every act and word must be characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity. 25 However, the Court cannot ignore the fact that the judiciary is essentially composed of human beings who have differing personalities and attitudes, and who are naturally vulnerable to human weaknesses 26 and emotions. Nevertheless, Morabe's response to complainant warrants a reminder from this Court to be courteous and mindful of his actions and language in dealing with the public in the performance of his official duties. DETACa
As regards the charge of violating Sec. 4 (b) of the Code of Conduct of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees and Sec. 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, this Court makes the following clarification.
In Domingo v. Office of the Ombudsman, 27 the Court had occasion to rule that the failure to abide by the norms of conduct under Sec. 4 (b) of the Code of Conduct of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees is not a ground for disciplinary action. This Court ruled, to wit:
Said provision merely enunciates "professionalism as an ideal norm of conduct to be observed by public servants, in addition to commitment to public interest, justness and sincerity, political neutrality, responsiveness to the public, nationalism and patriotism, commitment to democracy and simple living. Following this perspective, Rule V of the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 6713 adopted by the Civil Service Commission mandates the grant of incentives and rewards to officials and employees who demonstrate exemplary service and conduct based on their observance of the norms of conduct laid down in Section 4. In other words, under the mandated incentives and rewards system, officials and employees who comply with the high standard set by law would be rewarded. Those who fail to do so cannot expect the same favorable treatment. However, the Implementing Rules does not provide that they will have to be sanctioned for failure to observe these norms of conduct. Indeed, Rule X of the Implementing Rules affirms as grounds for administrative disciplinary action only acts "declared unlawful or prohibited by the Code." Rule X specifically mentions at least twenty-three (23) acts or omissions as grounds for administrative disciplinary action. Failure to abide by the norms of conduct under Section 4 (b) of R.A. No. 6713 is not one of them. 28 (emphasis supplied)
It is clear that Sec. 4 of the Code of Conduct of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees merely provides the standards of conduct that government employees are expected to observe. Notably, no other provision therein or in any of its related laws, penalize the failure to abide by Sec. 4. However, while respondents cannot be penalized for violating Sec. 4 (b) of the Code of Conduct of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, their conduct constitutes simple neglect of duly which is punishable under the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases m the Civil Service (RACCS).
Sec. 4 (b) on Professionalism specifically requires a certain degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence, and skill in the performance and discharge of duties. Meanwhile, jurisprudence defines simple neglect of duty as the failure to give attention to a task, or the disregard of a duty due to carelessness or indifference. 29 Naturally, public officials who commit simple neglect of duty likewise fail to uphold the standards required under Sec. 4 (b).
The same holds true for respondents' violation of Sec. 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel which requires personnel to perform duties with diligence and commit themselves to their duties during work hours. 30 In the case of Dungca v. Amante, 31 this Court found Mario Amante guilty of violating Sec. 1, Canon IV of the aforementioned Code for engaging in personal transactions during office hours. However, this Court recognized that the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel does not have a list of penalties for its violation. Nonetheless, the Court classified Amante's conduct as one of simple dishonesty and penalized him under the RACCS.
In the present case, while there is no doubt that despite the finding that respondents were in the office during work hours and discharging their official functions, their failure to account for the subject pleading still shows lack of diligence. Instructive is the case of Re: Report of Atty. Maria Consuelo Aissa P. Wong-Ruste "Re: Missing Original Records of CA-G.R. CV No. 01293, Sofia Tabuada v. Eleanor Tabuada, 32 where Records Officer II Mario Agura (Agura) was found to have lacked diligence in the performance of his duties for his failure to properly account for the loss of original court records in his custody. In said case, this Court ruled that Agura violated Sec. 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and is liable for simple neglect of duty.
Clearly, this Court considers the failure to account for records as tantamount to simple neglect of duty. 33 Here, the records clearly show that respondents failed to discharge their duty to record and file the pleadings received by the court. According to the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, it is primarily the function of the court's utility to sew originals of records, pleadings/documents, strictly according to the order of dates on which they were received and in the correct expediente. 34
Based on the Sinumpaang Hablang Salaysay, as well as respondents' Joint Comment, Cerillo represented to complainant that she had received the subject pleading prior to the scheduled hearing date. However, she denied receiving the same upon initial confrontation after the hearing and further passed the blame on Morabe. 35 On the other hand, Morabe was remiss in his duty when he failed to account for the subject pleading transmitted to him. Notwithstanding the fact that the said document was found later on, his failure to timely do so had prejudiced complainant and affected the outcome of her case.
It was likewise improper for Morabe to stamp the subject pleading as received on July 25, 2018, solely on the basis that Atty. Grana received the safe on July 23, 2018. The courier's proof of receipt clearly indicates that the subject pleading was received by Cerillo on July 24, 2018. Morabe could have easily confirmed the date of the court's actual receipt of the subject pleading with Cerillo. Nevertheless, this Court finds no ill will on the part of Morabe. To this Court's mind, the same may have even been fueled by his haste to properly receive the subject pleading and appease complainant. Notably, nothing in complainant's Sinumpaang Hablang Salaysay indicates that respondents' negligence was repulsive or of such nature to be considered brazen, flagrant or palpable as would amount to gross neglect of duty. 36 There was equally no indication that respondents had the propensity to ignore the rules, and lack of proof that their omission was motivated by corruption or that they deliberately misplaced the subject pleading. aDSIHc
This Court has repeatedly stressed that the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. 37 Every court employee is expected to observe the highest degree of efficiency and competency in his or her assigned task; as the image of the courts as administrators and dispensers of justice is not only reflected in their decisions, resolutions, or orders, but also mirrored in the conduct of their staff. Hence, a court staff who fall short of these standards warrant the imposition of administrative sanctions. 38
Under the 2017 RACCS, simple neglect of duty is considered a less grave offense and is punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense. 39 However, on October 2, 2018, the Court En Banc issued A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC, amending Rule 140 of the Rules of Court by expanding its coverage to include personnel of the lower courts. Subsequently, on July 7, 2020, the Court further amended Rule 140 to govern the discipline of all court personnel who are not judges or justices for all acts or omissions committed after the effectivity of A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC. Considering the difference in the classification of penalties between the 2017 RACCS and Rule 140, this Court clarified in Dela Rama v. De Leon40 that Rule 140 should retroactively apply unless such application shall be prejudicial to the erring court personnel. Hence, the Court must compare (a) the prevailing civil service rule at the time of the commission of the offense; and (b) Rule 140, and determine which between these rules is less prejudicial to the employee concerned. 41
Considering that the offense was committed prior to the 2018 amendment to Rule 140, the 2017 RACCS is the prevailing rule herein. Under the 2017 RACCS, simple neglect of duty is considered a less grave offense and is punishable by a suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense. On the other hand, under Rule 140, as amended, simple neglect of duty is classified as a Less Serious Charge 42 punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months; or a fine of not less than P35,000.00 but not exceeding P100,000.00. 43
Also, under the 2017 RACCS, the payment of a fine in lieu of suspension is available when the penalty imposed is six (6) months or less. 44 In several cases, this Court has refrained from imposing actual penalties in the presence of mitigating factors. 45 As disciplining authority, this Court is granted discretion to consider mitigating circumstances in the imposition of the proper penalty. 46
In the presence of mitigating circumstances, this Court has, instead of suspension, imposed a fine in the amount of P5,000.00 against court staff who were found guilty of simple neglect of duty, and sternly warned them against repeating the offense. Thus, in Heirs of Damaso Ochea v. Atty. Andrea P. Maratas (Atty. Maratas), 47 this Court considered Atty. Maratas' length of service and the fact that it was her first offense in imposing the fine of P5,000.00. The same amount was also imposed in OCA v. Amascual, 48 in view of therein respondent's retirement and that it was his first offense. Similarly, in the case of Ruste v. Selma (Selma), 49 this Court similarly took into consideration the mitigating circumstances of length of service and first offense when it imposed upon Selma a fine amounting to P5,000.00 coupled with a stern warning. Verily, the 2017 RACCS shall apply in the present case because the fine that may be imposed would be less prejudicial to respondents.
This Court notes that Cerillo has been a clerk since February 1997, while Morabe has been a process server since March 1988, and throughout their years of service, this is their first administrative infraction. 50 Thus, the OCA had correctly appreciated the mitigating circumstances of length of service and first offense in favor of respondents 51 in accordance with Rule 10, Sec. 53 of the 2017 RACCS. Considering the foregoing, this Court agrees with the OCA's recommendation as to the penalty and thus imposes upon respondents a fine in the amount of P5,000.00 each, with a warning that a repetition of a similar act will merit a more severe penalty.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds Larina C. Cerillo, Clerk III, and Rozanno L. Morabe, Process Server, GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and IMPOSES a FINE in the amount of P5,000.00 each. Respondents are hereby WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall merit a more severe sanction from this Court. Respondent Morabe is further reminded to be courteous and mindful of his actions and language in dealing with the public the performance of his official duties.
The Sinumpaang Hablang Salaysay dated August 23, 2018 (with enclosures) of Leonora D. Kim; the comment thereon of Clerk III Larina C. Cerillo and Process Server Rozanno L. Morabe; and the Report dated December 29, 2020 of the Office of the Court Administrator, are all NOTED. ETHIDa
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-10.
2. Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (2004).
3. An Act Establishing a Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, to Uphold the Time-Honored Principle of Public Office being a Public Trust, Granting Incentives and Rewards for Exemplary Service, Enumerating Prohibited Acts and Transactions and Providing Penalties for Violations Thereof and Other Purposes (1989).
4.Rollo, p. 4.
5.Id. at 14.
6.Id. at 4.
7.Id. at 5.
8.Id. at 6.
9. Id.
10.Id. at 21.
11.Id. at 6.
12.Id. at 7.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 31-34.
16.Id. at 32.
17.Id. at 40-46.
18.Id. at 42.
19.Id. at 43.
20.Id. at 45.
21.Id. at 46.
22. Section 2, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel provides:
CANON IV. Performance of Duties
Section 2. Court personnel shall carry their responsibilities as public servants in as courteous a manner as possible.
23. Section 5 (d) of the Code of Conduct of Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees provides:
Section 5. Duties of Public Officials and Employees. — In the performance of their duties, all public officials and employees are under obligation to: x x x (d) Act immediately on the public's personal transactions — All public officials and employees must attend to anyone who wants to avail himself of the services of their offices and must, at all times, act promptly and expeditiously.
24.Rollo, pp. 42-43.
25.Magnaye v. Sabas, 449 Phil. 686, 690 (2003).
26.Court Personnel of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC-San Carlos City v. Lllamas, 488 Phil. 62, 71-72 (2004).
27. 597 Phil. 470 (2009).
28.Id. at 478; see also Samson v. Restrivera, 662 Phil. 45, 59-60 (2011).
29.Pamintuan v. Comuyog, Jr., 766 Phil. 566, 577 (2015).
30. Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel provides:
CANON IV. Performance of Duties
Section 1. Court personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence. They shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours.
31. A.M. No. P-20-4094, January 26, 2021.
32. A.M. No. 19-08-CA, October 15, 2019.
33.Id.; Office of the Court Administrator v. Garcia-Rañoco, 571 Phil. 386, 390 (2008); OCA v. OIC and Legal Researcher Cinco, 610 Phil. 40, 47 (2009); Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Borongan, Eastern Samar, 535 Phil. 719 (2006).
34.Pamintuan v. Comuyog, Jr., supra note 29, at 576.
35.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
36.Re: Report of Atty. Maria Consuelo Aissa P. Wong-Ruste, supra note 32.
37.Office of the Court Administrator v. Toledo, A.M. No. P-13-3124, February 4, 2020.
38.See Baring-Uy v. Salinas, A.M. No. P-20-4075, September 8, 2020.
39. Rule 10, Section 50 (D), 2017 RACCS.
40. A.M. No. P-14-3240, March 2, 2021.
41.In Re: Habitual Tardiness of Jonathan F. Lazaro, Clerk of Court III, Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 98, A.M. No. P-21-020, June 21, 2021.
42. Rule 140, Section 23 (4), as amended; (A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC [2020] — Establishment of the Judicial Integrity Board [JIB] and the Corruption Prevention and Investigation Office [CPIO]).
Section 23. Less Serious Charges. — Less serious charges include:
xxx xxx xxx
4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars[.]
43. Rule 140, Section 25 (B), as amended; (A.M. No. 21-03-17-SC — Amendments to the Fines Provided in Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court).
Section 25. Sanctions.
xxx xxx xxx
B. If the respondent is guilty of less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
xxx xxx xxx
2. A fine of not less than P35,000.00but not exceeding P100,000.00.
44. Rule 10, Section 52 (2), 2017 RACCS.
45.Judge Argoanosa-Maniego v. Salinas, 608 Phil. 334, 346-347 (2009); Re: Administrative Case for Dishonesty Against Elizabeth Ting, Court Secretary I, and Angelita C. Esmerio, Clerk III, Office of the Division Clerk of Court, Third Division, 502 Phil. 264 (2005); Concerned Taxpayer v. Doblada, Jr., 507 Phil. 222, 226 (2005); Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud, 506 Phil. 423 (2005); De Guzman, Jr. v. Mendoza, 493 Phil. 690, 699 (2005).
46.Id.
47. 811 Phil. 660 (2017).
48. A.M. No. P-20-4083, June 17, 2020.
49. 618 Phil. 100 (2009).
50.Rollo, p. 32.
51.Id. at 45.