SECOND
DIVISION
ESTHER
P. MAGLEO,
in behalf of UNION
REFINERY CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
A.
M.
No. P-97-1242
[formerly
OCA I.P.I. No. 96-174-P]
June
19,
1997
-versus-
ATTY.
ARISTON G.
TAYAG, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC,
Branch 18, Malolos,
Bulacan,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I
O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a complaint
filed by Esther P. Magleo, vice president of the Union Refinery
Corporation,
charging Ariston G. Tayag, clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court
of
Malolos, Branch 18, with "gross neglect of duty, being notoriously
undesirable,
inefficient and incompetent in the performance of official duties,
refusal
to perform official duty, insubordination [and] conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service."[1]
The Union Refinery Corporation
[URC] was plaintiff in Civil Case 550-M-87 of the RTC in Malolos,
Bulacan.
On July 11, 1994, judgment was rendered against it. URC filed a notice
of appeal, for which reason the presiding judge, Judge Demetrio B.
Macapagal,
Sr., on August 25, 1994 ordered respondent branch clerk of court to
forward
"the complete records" of the case to the Court of Appeals.cralaw:red
Up to January of 1995,
however, the records had not yet been elevated to the appellate court
so
that, on January 19, 1995, URC filed a motion for the elevation of the
records to the Court of Appeals. On October 2, 1995, as the records
were
not yet transmitted to the appellate court, URC filed another motion,
but
still the records of the case had not been sent. On January 11, 1996,
URC
wrote respondent inquiring whether he had complied yet with the order
of
the court. Respondent did not reply to the letter. On June 26, 1996,
after
checking with the Court of Appeals, URC's counsel was informed that the
records were not yet with the Court. Complainant, as vice president of
URC, then filed the instant complaint.cralaw:red
In his Comment, respondent
informed the Court that the complete records of the case had finally
been
transmitted to the Court of Appeals on February 2, 1996. Respondent
explained
that the delay in the transmittal of the records was due to the fact
that
the duplicate copies of the transcript of stenographic notes were not
readily
available, while the exhibits were disarranged, so that it took
respondent
two (2) weeks to prepare them.cralaw:red
The Office of the Court
Administrator, to which this case was referred for evaluation of
January
22, 1997, recommends that respondent be fined P5,000.00 and warned that
repetition of this infraction in the future will be dealt with more
severely.cralaw:red
The recommendation is
well taken. The reason given by respondent for his failure to transmit
the records of Civil Case No. 550-M-87 are insubstantial. There was
inordinate
delay in the transmission of the records. As Senior Deputy Court
Administrator
Reynaldo L. Suarez states in his report:
While admittedly, the
records of the case of Civil Case No. 550-M-87 was already transmitted
to the Court of Appeals, this Office cannot tolerate the long period of
time, about 17 months, that the Branch Clerk of Court failed to
transmit
the records of the case. This Office cannot give credence to the
reasons
stated by the respondent in not transmitting the records of the case
within
the prescribed period. The Administrative functions of the Branch
Clerks
of Court are vital the prompt and proper administration of justice.
Among
the duties of the Branch Clerk of Court is the prompt and orderly
transmittal
of appealed cases and their records to the appellate court [Fabiculana,
Sr. vs. Gadon, 239 SCRA 542]. Under Rule 122, Section 8 of the Rules of
Court, the Clerk or Judge of the court with whom the notice of appeal
has
been filed must, within five (5) days after filing of the notice,
transmit
to the Clerk of Court to which the appeal is taken, the complete record
of the case together with the notice of appeal. 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 [Tan vs.
Coliflores, 240 SCRA 303]. It is the duty of the Branch Clerk of Court
to deliver the complete record of the case to the Clerk of Court so
that
it could be transmitted to the appellate court within five [5] days
after
the accused gave notice of his appeal. This duty could not be excused
simply
because copies of the stenographic notes has not been made by the
stenographers.
What is required to be transmitted within five [5] days from the filing
of a notice of appeal is the complete record, not the TSN. If the TSN
cannot
be transmitted at the same time as the record, it could be submitted to
the appellate court later [Villanueva vs. Pollentes, 247 SCRA 24]. If
respondent
Clerk of Court anticipates a delay in transmission of the records, he
should
have made a written manifestation to his Presiding Judge or the
courtesy
of answering the letter-query of herein complainant, on the reasons why
he is incurring in delay in the transmission of records of Civil Case
No.
550-M-87 to the appellate court. Hence, this Office finds herein
respondent
guilty of negligence in failing to transmit the records of the case on
time.
Parties should not be made
to wait before their complaints are attended to. And, certainly, where
necessary, they should be informed of the status of their case, unlike
in the case of complainant to whom respondent did not even give the
courtesy
of a reply to explain the reason for the delay in the transmission of
the
records.
Accordingly, the Court
finds respondent Atty. Ariston G. Tayag guilty of neglect of duty and
hereby
orders him to pay a fine of P5,000.00 with warning that a repetition of
this or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Regalado, Romero, Puno
and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.cralaw:red
__________________________
Endnote
[1]
Rollo, p. 2. |