PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

|

Search for www.chanrobles.com

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

JUDGE ANTONIO P. PAREDES, Executive Judge, City Court of Manila, Complainant, vs. ATILANO BARROZO, Branch Clerk of Court, Respondent.chanrobles virtual law library

AQUINO, J.: chanrobles virtual law library

This is an administrative complainant for neglect of duty. On January 8, 1981, Danilo Guevarra was charged in the city court of Manila (traffic court Branch XI) with a violation of section 1156 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila for having used the sidewalk as his place of business (Criminal Case No. 156706).chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Arraigned on that same day, Guevarra, who was under detention, pleaded not guilty. Atilano Barrozo, the branch clerk of court, forwarded the case to the executive judge of the city court six days later or on January 14.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Under Circular No. 3 of this Court dated April 24, 1975, it was Barrozo's duty to forward the said case without delay to the executive judge for inclusion in the raffle.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

On January 16, the executive judge asked Barrozo to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his delay in transmitting the case. The delay resulted in Guevarra's detention for six days.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In his answer, Barrozo alleged that Guevarra and two others were accused in one information. His two co-accused pleaded guilty but Guevarra pleaded not guilty. The record of the case was taken to the cashier's office so that the two accused, who had pleaded guilty, could pay the fine. That circumstance delayed the transmittal of the case to the executive judge. Barrozo manifested that he had no deliberate intent to delay the raffling of the case and that the delay was allegedly due to oversight.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

We find that Barrozo is guilty of inexcusable neglect of duty in not complying with the requirement of Circular No. 3 for the immediate transmittal of the record of Guevarra's case to the executive judge for raffling. That delay prejudiced the accused.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Court Administrator, Justice Lorenzo Relova, and complainant executive judge, respondent Barrozo is ordered to pay a fine equivalent to his compensation for twenty days. He is warned that a more severe penalty will be imposed upon him for the commission of another irregularity. A copy of this resolution should be attached to his personal record.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.