February 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > February 2007 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. 06-4-219-RTC : February 21, 2007] RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT AND PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF CASES IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 54, BACOLOD CITY :
[A.M. No. 06-4-219-RTC : February 21, 2007]
RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT AND PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF CASES IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 54, BACOLOD CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated 21 FEBRUARY 2007
A.M. No. 06-4-219-RTC - Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of Cases in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Bacolod City
RESOLUTION
Before us are the (a) Motion for Reconsideration dated December 27, 2006 of our Resolution of November 2, 2006 finding Atty. Gia L. Arinday, Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Bacolod City guilty of simple negligence and imposing a fine of P5,000.00 with warning that a repetition of the same or similar infractions in the future will be dealt with more severely; and (b) Manifestation and Submission dated December 20, 2006, filed by Judge Demosthenes L. Magallanes who was found guilty in the same Resolution of undue delay in rendering decision and making untruthful statements in his Certificate of Service and imposed a penalty of suspension for three months.
(a) In her Motion for Reconsideration, Arinday argues that she has efficiently done her duties of making a monthly report of the status of all cases in their sala and that it would be impolite for her to write a memorandum or any written reminder to her superior considering that the monthly report of the status of cases are signed by both of them and sworn to before the Hon. Executive Judge. Arinday further argues that in her 16 years of dedicated service, she always make it a point to make a truthful report for fear of being penalized or losing a job, and that she cannot misrepresent the actual and truthful handling of the cases in her sala.
It must be stressed that it is the delay in the court's speedy disposition of cases and not the delay in the submission of the monthly report of cases which made her liable for simple negligence. We cannot accept movant's argument that it would be impolite for her to write a memorandum or any written reminder to her superior. We stress that it is the duty and obligation of the clerk of court to remind the executive judge, whether orally or in writing, on the pending cases which requires immediate attention and consideration.
Clerks of court serve as models for their co-employees to act speedily and with dispatch on their assigned task to avoid the clogging of cases in court and thereby assist in the administration of justice without delay. They serve as models for court employees in their conduct and actuations. Thus, they are expected to possess a high degree of discipline and efficiency in the performance of their functions.[1]
As we have emphasized, the branch clerk of court cannot hide under the cloak of the judge's inefficiency. Arinday's failure to immediately take initial action on cases raffled to the court, calendar and monitor cases where she was authorized to receive evidence ex parte displays her lack of diligence in the discharge of such administrative functions.
(b) In his Manifestation and Submission, Judge Magallanes submits that he has been under the medical care of Dr. Jose. Anthony C. Martinez, Specialist, Diabetes & Internal Medicine of Bacolod City "since September 4, 2000" for diabetes mellitus and hypertension which have debilitating symptoms and slowed him down, as evidenced by the medical certificate issued by Dr. Martinez on December 18, 2006.
In the said medical certificate, Dr. Martinez certifies that Judge Magallanes has been under his medical care for type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension since September 4, 2000. However, in his letter dated February 28, 2005, earlier submitted to us, Judge Magallanes averred that his diabetes mellitus developed sometime in 2001. How can Judge Magallanes be treated by Dr. Martinez for diabetes mellitus "since September 4, 2000" when according to Judge Magallanes himself, said illness set in only in 2001? It is clear from the foregoing that Judge Magallanes is trying to mislead the Court by presenting a medical certificate inconsistent with what he claimed in his letter.
Moreover, we note that the medical certificate is unverified and a mere photocopy which is considered as having no probative value.
Therefore, we find no cogent reason to modify our Resolution of November 2, 2006 as no substantial merit is presented to warrant reconsideration of the same.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court RESOLVES to:
(a) DENY the Motion for Reconsideration of Atty. Gia L. Arinday for lack of merit; and
(b) DENY Judge Demosthenes L. Magallanes's Manifestation and Submission which is treated as a motion for reconsideration, for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. 06-4-219-RTC - Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of Cases in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Bacolod City
Before us are the (a) Motion for Reconsideration dated December 27, 2006 of our Resolution of November 2, 2006 finding Atty. Gia L. Arinday, Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Bacolod City guilty of simple negligence and imposing a fine of P5,000.00 with warning that a repetition of the same or similar infractions in the future will be dealt with more severely; and (b) Manifestation and Submission dated December 20, 2006, filed by Judge Demosthenes L. Magallanes who was found guilty in the same Resolution of undue delay in rendering decision and making untruthful statements in his Certificate of Service and imposed a penalty of suspension for three months.
(a) In her Motion for Reconsideration, Arinday argues that she has efficiently done her duties of making a monthly report of the status of all cases in their sala and that it would be impolite for her to write a memorandum or any written reminder to her superior considering that the monthly report of the status of cases are signed by both of them and sworn to before the Hon. Executive Judge. Arinday further argues that in her 16 years of dedicated service, she always make it a point to make a truthful report for fear of being penalized or losing a job, and that she cannot misrepresent the actual and truthful handling of the cases in her sala.
It must be stressed that it is the delay in the court's speedy disposition of cases and not the delay in the submission of the monthly report of cases which made her liable for simple negligence. We cannot accept movant's argument that it would be impolite for her to write a memorandum or any written reminder to her superior. We stress that it is the duty and obligation of the clerk of court to remind the executive judge, whether orally or in writing, on the pending cases which requires immediate attention and consideration.
Clerks of court serve as models for their co-employees to act speedily and with dispatch on their assigned task to avoid the clogging of cases in court and thereby assist in the administration of justice without delay. They serve as models for court employees in their conduct and actuations. Thus, they are expected to possess a high degree of discipline and efficiency in the performance of their functions.[1]
As we have emphasized, the branch clerk of court cannot hide under the cloak of the judge's inefficiency. Arinday's failure to immediately take initial action on cases raffled to the court, calendar and monitor cases where she was authorized to receive evidence ex parte displays her lack of diligence in the discharge of such administrative functions.
(b) In his Manifestation and Submission, Judge Magallanes submits that he has been under the medical care of Dr. Jose. Anthony C. Martinez, Specialist, Diabetes & Internal Medicine of Bacolod City "since September 4, 2000" for diabetes mellitus and hypertension which have debilitating symptoms and slowed him down, as evidenced by the medical certificate issued by Dr. Martinez on December 18, 2006.
In the said medical certificate, Dr. Martinez certifies that Judge Magallanes has been under his medical care for type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension since September 4, 2000. However, in his letter dated February 28, 2005, earlier submitted to us, Judge Magallanes averred that his diabetes mellitus developed sometime in 2001. How can Judge Magallanes be treated by Dr. Martinez for diabetes mellitus "since September 4, 2000" when according to Judge Magallanes himself, said illness set in only in 2001? It is clear from the foregoing that Judge Magallanes is trying to mislead the Court by presenting a medical certificate inconsistent with what he claimed in his letter.
Moreover, we note that the medical certificate is unverified and a mere photocopy which is considered as having no probative value.
Therefore, we find no cogent reason to modify our Resolution of November 2, 2006 as no substantial merit is presented to warrant reconsideration of the same.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court RESOLVES to:
(a) DENY the Motion for Reconsideration of Atty. Gia L. Arinday for lack of merit; and
(b) DENY Judge Demosthenes L. Magallanes's Manifestation and Submission which is treated as a motion for reconsideration, for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Escobar Vda. de Lopez v. Luna, A.M. No. P-04-1786, February 13, 2006.
