ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
February-1997 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 99039 February 3, 1997 - FORD PHIL., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100748 February 3, 1997 - JOSE BARITUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108547 February 3, 1997 - FELICIDAD VDA. DE CABRERA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112761-65 February 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PORFERIO M. PEPITO

  • G.R. No. 114183 February 3, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS BORJA

  • G.R. No. 119310 February 3, 1997 - JULIETA V. ESGUERRA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119935 February 3, 1997 - UNITED SOUTH DOCKHANDLERS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122156 February 3, 1997 - MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v. GSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123332 February 3, 1997 - AUGUSTO GATMAYTAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118915 February 4, 1997 - CAPITOL MEDICAL CENTER-ACE-UFSW v. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1110 February 6, 1997 - MELENCIO S. SY v. CARMELITA S. MONGCUPA

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1203 February 6, 1997 - ERNESTO A. REYES v. NORBERTO R. ANOSA

  • G.R. No. 110668 February 6, 1997 ccc zz

    SMITH, BELL & CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111682 February 6, 1997 - ZENAIDA REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117982 February 6, 1997 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118843 February 6, 1997 - ERIKS PTE. LTD. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 118950-54 February 6, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUCRECIA GABRES

  • G.R. No. 119322 February 6, 1997 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98252 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENE JANUARIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110391 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOLORES DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 112191 February 7, 1997 - FORTUNE MOTORS (PHILS.) CORP., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112714-15 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO SAGARAL

  • G.R. No. 117472 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEO ECHEGARAY

  • G.R. No. 119657 February 7, 1997 - UNIMASTERS CONGLOMERATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 119772-73 February 7, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NIGEL RICHARD GATWARD

  • G.R. No. 125249 February 7, 1997 - JIMMY S. DE CASTRO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-95-1161 February 10, 1997 - JESUS N. BANDONG v. BELLA R. CHING

  • G.R. No. 108894 February 10, 1997 - TECNOGAS PHIL. MFG. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109887 February 10, 1997 - CECILIA CARLOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117702 February 10, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPIN YPARRAGUIRRE

  • G.R. No. 124553 February 10, 1997 - ROSARIO R. TUASON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1070 February 12, 1997 - MARIA APIAG, ET AL. v. ESMERALDO G. CANTERO

  • Adm. Matter No. P-87-100 February 12, 1997 - FELISA ELIC VDA. DE ABELLERA v. NEMESIO N. DALISAY

  • Adm. Matter No. P-96-1231 February 12, 1997 - ISAIAS P. DICDICAN v. RUSSO FERNAN, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 68166 February 12, 1997 - HEIRS OF EMILIANO NAVARRO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104666 February 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO OMBROG

  • G.R. No. 115129 February 12, 1997 - IGNACIO BARZAGA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116511 February 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. COLOMA TABAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118025 February 12, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REBECCO SATOR

  • G.R. No. 120769 February 12, 1997 - STANLEY J. FORTICH v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125531 February 12, 1997 - JOVAN LAND v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126013 February 12, 1997 - HEINZRICH THEIS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107554 February 13, 1997 - CEBU INT’L. FINANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108763 February 13, 1997 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112968 February 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARSENIO LETIGIO

  • G.R. No. 114144 February 13, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO ABAD

  • G.R. Nos. 114711 & 115889 February 13, 1997 - GARMENTS and TEXTILE EXPORT BOARD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122728 February 13, 1997 - CASIANO A. ANGCHANGCO v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-217 February 17, 1997 - MANUEL F. CONCEPCION v. JESUS V. AGANA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ 97-1369 February 17, 1997 - OCTAVIO DEL CALLAR v. IGNACIO L. SALVADOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 103501-03 & 103507 February 17, 1997 - LUIS A. TABUENA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119247 February 17, 1997 - CESAR SULIT v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119536 February 17, 1997 - GLORIA S. DELA CRUZ v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121017 February 17, 1997 - OLIVIA B. CAMANAG v. JESUS F. GUERRERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122165 February 17, 1997 - ALA MODE GARMENTS, INC. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123823 February 17, 1997 - MODESTO G. ESPAÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96249 February 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALIPIO QUIAMCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114396 February 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIAM ROBERT BURTON

  • G.R. No. 118140 February 19, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE PIANDIONG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121084 February 19, 1997 - TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP. v. TOYOTA MOTOR PHILS. CORP. LABOR UNION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107916 February 20, 1997 - PERCIVAL MODAY, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112288 February 20, 1997 - DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1034 February 21, 1997 - LEWELYN S. ESTRELLER v. SOFRONIO MANATAD, JR.

  • G.R. No. 73399 February 21, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAMON ABEDES

  • G.R. No. 117394 February 21, 1997 - HINATUAN MINING CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. SDC-97-2-P February 24, 1997 - SOPHIA ALAWI v. ASHARY M. ALAUYA

  • G.R. No. 110427 February 24, 1997 - CARMEN CAÑIZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-1195 February 26, 1997 - ROMEO NAZARENO, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE M. ALMARIO

  • G.R. No. 94237 February 26, 1997 - BUILDING CARE CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105294 February 26, 1997 - PACITA DAVID-CHAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107671 February 26, 1997 - REMMAN ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109849 February 26, 1997 - MAXIMINO FUENTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 110098 February 26, 1997 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BUENAFE AZUGUE

  • G.R. No. 111538 February 26, 1997 - PARAÑAQUE KINGS ENTERPRISES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116033 February 26, 1997 - ALFREDO L. AZARCON v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123404 February 26, 1997 - AURELIO SUMALPONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-97-1368 February 27, 1997 - ERNESTO RIEGO, ET AL. v. EMILIO LEACHON, JR.

  •  





     
     

    Adm. Matter No. P-95-1161   February 10, 1997 - JESUS N. BANDONG v. BELLA R. CHING

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [Adm. Matter No. P-95-1161. February 10, 1997.]

    ATTY. JESUS N. BANDONG, Clerk of Court VI, Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Cataingan, Masbate, Complainant, v. BELLA R. CHING, Court Interpreter, Respondent.


    SYLLABUS


    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; COURT PERSONNEL; CLERK OF COURT; AS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF THE COURT, HEREIN COMPLAINANT FAILED IN HIS DUTY OF SUPERVISION OVER ALL COURT RECORDS. — After due deliberation, we find the explanation plainly unsatisfactory, not because of the obvious haste in its preparation which accounted for its various errors in spelling and grammar, but because in its interstices lie the unwitting admission that he had not done enough to ensure that his subordinates performed their duties in a satisfactory and efficient manner as demanded by the public trust character of their office. Constant reminders to subordinates of their duties and responsibilities, the holding of conferences and the display on top of their office tables of photocopies of BC CSO Form No. 1 are inadequate compliance with the duty of supervision. A periodic assessment of their work and monitoring of their accomplishments are vital in supervision. These become necessary because Atty. Jesus N. Bandong, as clerk of court, has control and supervision over all court records (Manual for Clerks of Court, 26, 32). In short, it was his duty, from time to time, to check or verify if the Minutes in the cases before his Branch were prepared or accomplished. It could clearly be deduced from his Explanation that he had not done so in the cases where respondent Bella R. Ching had dismally failed in her duty to prepare the Minutes. Atty. Jesus N. Bandong cannot then assume the stance of Pontius Pilate and cleanse himself of any culpability. His "discovery" of Bella R. Ching’s non-feasance was, ironically and unfortunately, a revelation of his own neglect of duty.


    R E S O L U T I O N


    DAVIDE, JR., J.:


    In our decision in this case of 23 August 1996, we observed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    This Court, however, cannot end this case with the above pronouncement. If the neglect of duty by the respondent went on unnoticed for more than ten years, then her immediate superior, the clerk of court, must have to explain why he failed to call respondent’s attention to her nonfeasance in office. Clerks of courts are the administrative officers of courts and have, inter alia, control and supervision over all court records (Manual for Clerks of Court, 26, 32). They should then see to it that subordinates perform their functions well. Hence, the complainant in this case, Atty. Jesus N. Bandong, Clerk of Court VI, must be made to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for neglect of duty.

    Accordingly, in the dispositive portion of the decision we required complainant Atty. Jesus N. Bandong "TO SHOW CAUSE . . . why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for neglect of duty for his failure to supervise the performance of duty of Respondent."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In his two-page Compliance received by this Court on 27 September 1996, Atty. Jesus N. Bandong offered this two-paragraph explanation, which we quote verbatim:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Since his appointment as Deputy Clerk of Court, (CFI) Masbate, Masbate in 1976, then promoted as Acting Clerk of Court, RTC. Br. 49, Cataingan, Masbate under the Judiciary Reorganization Act in 1983, and presently Clerk of Court VI, RTC, Br. 49, Cataingan, Masbate, he had been exercising his duties, responsibilities and general supervision over his personnel with due diligence, efficiently and effectively. He reminded his personnel always of their duties and responsibilities as provided for in the Manual for Clerk of Court and even to the extent of furnishing xerox copy of which is hereto attached, to be posted on their respective office table as guidelines in their daily and faithful performance of their duties and responsibilities. Apart from these, the Office of the Administrative Services furnished every employees, upon assumption to duty, copies of the above mentioned form (Position Description Form) to be filled up and signed by the employee concerned together with their immediate supervisor as condition precedent for faithful compliance of the condition stated therein.

    These reminders were repeatedly explained to the employees in every conference called by the Executive Judge, Hon. Henry B. Basilla. But despite such reminders, she, (Court Interpreter) was remissed in Exercising her duties and responsibilities as provided for in the Manual, and as mandated in the Position Description signed by her. It has been the belief of the undersigned that because of these reminders and conferences, she has been performing well in her function. Although sometimes, the undersigned was unable to foresee every details of her acts, due to the pressure of his works.

    In compliance with the resolution of 21 October 1996, Atty. Jesus N. Bandong manifested on 18 November 1996 that he was submitting his case for resolution on the basis of his Explanation.

    After due deliberation, we find the explanation plainly unsatisfactory, not because of the obvious haste in its preparation which accounted for its various errors in spelling and grammar, but because in its interstices lie the unwitting admission that he had not done enough to ensure that his subordinates performed their duties in a satisfactory and efficient manner as demanded by the public trust character of their office. Constant reminders to subordinates of their duties and responsibilities, the holding of conferences and the display on top of their office tables of photocopies of BC CSO Form No. 1 are inadequate compliance with the duty of supervision. A periodic assessment of their work and monitoring of their accomplishments are vital in supervision. These become necessary because Atty. Jesus N. Bandong, as clerk of court, has control and supervision over all court records (Manual for Clerks of Court, 26, 32). In short, it was his duty, from time to time, to check or verify if the Minutes in the cases before his Branch were prepared or accomplished. It could clearly be deduced from his Explanation that he had not done so in the cases where respondent Bella R. Ching had dismally failed in her duty to prepare the Minutes.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    Atty. Jesus N. Bandong cannot then assume the stance of Pontius Pilate and cleanse himself of any culpability. His "discovery" of Bella R. Ching’s non-feasance was, ironically and unfortunately, a revelation of his own neglect of duty.

    WHEREFORE, for neglect of duty, herein complainant ATTY. JESUS N. BANDONG is sentenced to pay a fine of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) payable within ten (10) days from notice of this Resolution. Let a copy of this resolution be attached o his personal record in the Office of the Administrative Services of the Court.

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Melo, Francisco and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

    Adm. Matter No. P-95-1161   February 10, 1997 - JESUS N. BANDONG v. BELLA R. CHING


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED