SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-14-3185. June 16, 2021.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3740-P]
GEMMA B. QUITLONG, complainant, vs.DOMINGO V. PADLAN-CLERK OF COURT II, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, AGUILAR-BUGALLON, PANGASINAN, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated16 June 2021which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-14-3185 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3740-P] — (Gemma B. Quitlong v. Domingo V. Padlan-Clerk of Court II, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Aguilar-Bugallon, Pangasinan). —
It appearing that Gemma B. Quitlong (complainant) failed to send a copy of her reply and letter to Domingo V. Padlan (respondent) and to submit to this Court a report of her compliance thereto required in the Resolution dated June 23, 2014, the Court resolves to DISPENSE WITH the aforesaid compliance with the Resolution dated June 23, 2014.
In her Letter-Complaint 1 dated October 13, 2011, complainant charged respondent, Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Aguilar, Pangasinan with neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming of a court employee.
The complaint stemmed from respondent's alleged unexplained delay in complying with the request of the Land Registration Authority (LRA) to issue a certification of authenticity of the Decision dated January 20, 2010 relative to complainant's Land Registration Case No. N-B-014. The case was heard and decided by the MCTC, Aguilar, Pangasinan where respondent works as clerk of court. The request for certification was received by the aforesaid court on March 29, 2010. 2
According to complainant, no compliance was made by respondent even after the lapse of more than one year from March 29, 2010. Hence, on June 15, 2011, she personally went to MCTC, Aguilar, Pangasinan to follow up with respondent the status of the requested certification. Respondent promised her that he would send the certification to the LRA within the week. On July 6, 2011, she verified with the LRA office in Manila but she was informed that respondent had still not sent the requested certification. Neither had respondent returned her calls nor replied to her text messages. Consequently, she was forced to go to Aguilar, Pangasinan to make another follow-up. 3
For three straight days from July 11, 2011 to July 13, 2011, between 9:30 to 11:00 o'clock in the morning, she showed up in the court to catch respondent, but each time, the latter was not around. On the fourth day, July 14, 2011, respondent arrived in the court at 11:10 in the morning. She inquired from respondent anew about the request for certification. The latter replied, "hindi lang kayo ang inaasikaso ko, kung anong plano mo di gumawa ka ng aksiyon mo." 4 CAIHTE
On the fifth day, July 15, 2011, she went back to the court but respondent was again missing. On July 18, 2011 though, respondent assured her that he would send the certification to the LRA office in Manila within the day. 5
Respondent's irresponsibility caused her much inconvenience and considerable expenses in going back and forth to follow-up on the request for certification. Respondent's willful negligence in performing his duties and responsibilities makes him unworthy to occupy a key position in the judiciary. She, thus, urged the Court to take appropriate action against respondent who had not only been remiss in his duties but had also acted discourteously toward her.
On January 18, 2012, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received respondent's Comment 6 on the letter-complaint. He admitted that the MCTC, Aguilar, Pangasinan received the LRA's letter-request on March 29, 2010 and that he acted on it only on July 18, 2011. He blamed the process server for the delayed compliance as the latter allegedly failed to bring it to his attention.
He only met complainant on July 14, 2011 and he promised her that he would send the requested certification to the LRA on July 18, 2011, which he did. He refuted complainant's allegation of absenteeism and tardiness. He clarified that on the dates that complainant accused him of being absent from the court, he was actually out on official business, i.e., working on the court's request for office chairs, verifying the court's budget, withdrawing an accused's cash bailbond from Landbank, following up the request for the court's ceiling repair, or was on sick leave. He attached certificates of appearance issued by the various offices he visited during those dates and other supporting documents. 7
He vehemently denied complainant's allegation that he uttered impolite remarks toward her. He branded the accusation as baseless, self-serving, and a "product of complainant's fertile imagination." 8
OCA REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The OCA found 9 respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty as it took him more than a year to act on a simple request from the LRA. It considered as unworthy of credence respondent's explanation that he was unaware of the request because it was not immediately brought to his attention. He cannot simply hide behind the alleged incompetence or lapses of the people under his administrative supervision. Notably, the Certificate of Appearance dated May 12, 2011 signed by respondent himself and issued to complainant shows that, as of date, he was already aware of the LRA request, yet, it took him another two (2) months to comply, albeit, the matter involved documents that were already in the court's custody. The OCA reminded that clerks of courts are ranking officers who perform vital functions in the administration of justice. As such, much is expected of them. Respondent must, thus, devise a more organized system of receiving, recording, and indorsing documents if only to ensure that public service is not derailed.
The OCA noted that under Section 52, Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS), simple neglect of duty is classified as less grave offense, punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense. Nonetheless, the OCA opined that the imposition of fine on respondent, with stern reminder, in lieu of suspension, may be considered for two (2) reasons: one, this is respondent's first offense, and two, respondent's unhampered performance of the duties and functions of his office is necessary to the prompt and orderly administration of justice. 10
On the charge of conduct unbecoming of a court employee by reason of respondent's supposed arrogant behavior and utterance of unsavory remarks, the OCA recommended the dismissal thereof for insufficiency of evidence.
RULING
We adopt the findings of the OCA but modify the recommended penalty.
All court personnel must act with utmost responsibility and efficiency for they are officers charged with the administration of justice. The Court has repeatedly ruled that any transgression, abuse, or dereliction of duty by any court personnel which erodes the public's confidence in the Judiciary will not be countenanced. Certainly, the image of the Judiciary is the shadow of its officers and employees. A simple misfeasance or nonfeasance may have disastrous repercussions on that image. 11
Here, respondent was required to do a simple and uncomplicated task, i.e., to certify the authenticity of a decision issued by the very court where he is assigned as the clerk of court. Considering that the decision was easily, if not immediately, accessible to respondent, his delayed compliance for more than a year was inexplicable. Moreso because complainant herself relentlessly made repeated follow-up with respondent himself.
His explanation that the process server failed to bring the matter to his attention is utterly unconvincing. He cannot just pass the blame on a subordinate to evade administrative liability. As administrator of the court, the clerk of court exercises general supervision of all its day-to-day affairs and operations. If the clerk of court must necessarily leave his or her post to attend to equally important matters, he or she must either delegate tasks to other court personnel or ensure, at the very least, that when he or she comes back, all matters, urgent or otherwise, must be brought to his or her attention. This way, the clerk of court would not miss any detail, information, or concern that requires the court's consideration or action. For sure, the office of the clerk of court is the hub of activities, and he or she is expected to be assiduous in performing official duties and in supervising and managing the court's dockets, records and exhibits. 12 Indeed, clerks of court are essential judicial officers who perform delicate administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice. 13 DETACa
As it was, however, respondent failed to act on complainant's simple request for an unreasonable length of time. He is, therefore, guilty of simple neglect of duty. Simple neglect of duty has been defined as the failure of an employee to give his or her attention to a task expected of him or her. It signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. 14 It is a digression from the time-honored principle that public office is a public trust 15 which requires from every public officer no less than utmost efficiency and competence in service. So must it be.
PENALTY
On June 1, 2004, the Court issued Administrative Matter (A.M.) No. 03-06-13-SC, otherwise known as the "Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (CCCP)," to govern or regulate the conduct of all court employees. The CCCP's incorporation clause states that provisions of the Civil Service Rules (i.e., the 1999 URACCS, the 20 11 RRACCS, and the 2017 RACCS), which include the schedule of penalties, shall have suppletory application to administrative cases involving officers and employees of the judiciary.
Under the 1999 URACCS, 16 administrative offenses are classified into grave, less grave, or light. 17 Section 52 (B) (1), Rule IV thereof classifies simple neglect of duty as a less grave offense and carries the corresponding penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense.
Meanwhile, on October 2, 2018, the Court approved A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC 18 which contained amendments to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, viz.:
Rule 140
Discipline of Judges of Regular and Special Courts, Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals, Court Administrator, Deputy Court Administrator and Assistant Court Administrator
SECTION 1. How instituted. — Proceedings for the discipline of Justices of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, Court of Tax Appeals and Judges and personnel of the lower courts, including the Shari'a Courts, and the officials and employees of the Office of the Juris consult, Court Administrator, Deputy Court Administrator, Assistant Court Administrator and their personnel, may be instituted, motu proprio, by the Supreme Court, in the Judicial Integrity Board. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Under Section 21 of the same rule, administrative charges are classified as serious, less serious, or light. Less serious charges include: 19
1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case;
2. Frequently and unjustified absences without leave or habitual tardiness;
3. Unauthorized practice of law;
4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars;
5. Receiving additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized by law;
6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of services; and
7. Simple Misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct or of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, and less grave offenses under the Civil Service Laws and Rules.
In relation thereto, any of the following sanctions may be imposed on a person guilty of a less serious charge:
SECTION 25. Sanctions. —
xxx xxx xxx
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
In the recent case of Dela Rama v. De Leon, 20 the Court held that Rule 140 should also govern even those cases already pending before it took effect, unless its application is prejudicial to the employee or officer concerned.
Here, the OCA imposed a fine on respondent, in lieu of suspension considering that the infraction was respondent's first offense and so as not to hamper the performance of his work which is indispensable to the prompt and orderly administration of justice.
In Botigan-Santos v. Gener, 21 the erring clerk of court was found administratively liable for simple neglect of duty. Instead of imposing the penalty of suspension conformably with the URACCS, the Court imposed a fine on respondent so as not to hamper the performance of her work as the same would be left unattended by reason of her absence. 22 aDSIHc
For the same reason, and in the exigencies of the service, the Court adopts the recommendation of the OCA to impose a fine on respondent, in lieu of suspension.
The 1999 URACCS states that: "the penalty of fine shall be in an amount not exceeding six (6) months salary of respondent and the computation thereof shall be based on the salary rate of the respondent when the decision becomes final and executory." 23 On the other hand, the amount of fine prescribed under Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 21-03-17-SC 24 for a less grave offense under Civil Service Rules such as simple neglect of duty should not be less than P35,000.00 but not exceeding P100,000.00.
Notably, respondent occupies the position of Clerk of Court II with Salary Grade 18. 25 For Salary Step 1 alone under SG 18, the Basic Monthly Salary is already at P43,681.00. 26 Verily, therefore, Rule 140 should apply to respondent as it would be less prejudicial to him.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent Domingo V. Padlan, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Aguilar-Bugallon, Aguilar, Pangasinan GUILTY of simple neglect of duty. He is FINED in the amount of THIRTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P35,000.00).
Respondent is STERNLY WARNED that the commission of the same or similar infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-5.
2.Id. at 7.
3.Id. at 3.
4.Id. at 4.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 48-51.
7.Id. at 49-50.
8.Id. at 51.
9. OCA Report and Recommendation, id. at 93-98.
10.Id. at 97.
11.Office of the Court Administrator v. Ramirez, 489 Phil. 262, 271 (2005).
12.See Rivera v. Buena, 569 Phil. 551, 553 (2008).
13.Delos Reyes v. Cruz and Clerk of Court v. Gundran, 624 Phil. 246, 257 (2010).
14.Angat v. Government Service Insurance System, 765 Phil. 213, 229 (2015).
15.See Section 1, Article XI of the Constitution.
16. The 1999 URACCS were still in effect at the time the offense was committed since the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) was promulgated only on November 8, 2011.
17. SECTION 52. Classification of Offenses. — Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
xxx xxx xxx
18.See Establishment of the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) and the Corruption Prevention and Investigation Office (CPIO), supplemented on July 7, 2020.
19. Section 23 of Rule 140, as further amended by A.M. No. 18-01-05-SC, approved on July 7, 2020.
20. A.M. No. P-14-3240, March 2, 2021.
21.See 817 Phil. 655, 661 (2017).
22.Id.
23. Section 56 (e) thereof.
24. Amendments to the Fines Provided in Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, effective May 31, 2021. Section 25 (B) was amended as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
NOW THEREFORE, acting on the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator, the Court Resolved to AMEND Section 25, paragraphs A, B and C, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, to read as follows:
"Section 25. Sanctions. —
xxx xxx xxx
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of not less than P35,000.00 but not exceeding P100,000.00.
xxx xxx xxx"
25. For Step 1 employees under SG 18, the Basic Monthly Salary is P43,681.00. See https://governmentph.com/salary-grade-table-government-plantilla-positions/ last accessed on May 21, 2021.
26.Seehttps://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/Issuances/2021/Local-Budget-Circular/LOCAL-BUDGET-CIRCULAR-NO-132.pdf last accessed on May 21, 2021.