THIRD
DIVISION
ATTY.
JESUS N. BANDONG,Clerk of Court VI,
Regional Trial Court,Branch 49, Cataingan,
Masbate,
Complainant,
A. M. No. P-95-1161
February 10, 1997
-versus-
BELLA
R. CHING, Court Interpreter,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I O N
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
In Our
decision in this case of 23 August 1996,
We observed:
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."
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:
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 conferences called by the Executive Judge, Hon.
Henry B. Basilla. But despite such reminders, she, [Court Interpreter]
was remiss 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 oversee 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.
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 nonfeasance was, ironically and unfortunately, a
revelation
of his own neglect of duty.cralaw:red
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 to his personal record in the
Office of the Administrative Services of this Court.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J.,
Melo, Francisco and Panganiban,
JJ., concur. |