September 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > September 2008 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-08-2544 : September 10, 2008] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. ATTY. BLAISE SAMBOLLEDO-BARCENA, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT AND MS. JOSEPHINE JOSE, CRIMINAL DOCKET CLERK-IN-CHARGE, BOTH OF RTC, BRANCH 4, TUGUEGARAO CITY, CAGAYAN:
[A.M. No. P-08-2544 : September 10, 2008]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. ATTY. BLAISE SAMBOLLEDO-BARCENA, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT AND MS. JOSEPHINE JOSE, CRIMINAL DOCKET CLERK-IN-CHARGE, BOTH OF RTC, BRANCH 4, TUGUEGARAO CITY, CAGAYAN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 10 September 2008:
A.M. No. P-08-2544 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Blaise Sambolledo-Barcena, Branch Clerk of Court and Ms. Josephine Jose, Criminal docket clerk-in-charge, both of RTC, Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan) [Formerly A.M. No. 01-1-06-RTC (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of Cases Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Brs. 1 to 5, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan)].-As a result of a judicial audit and physical inventory of cases conducted in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branches 1 to 5, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, it was discovered that five (5) exhibits consisting of shabu as evidence in Criminal Case Nos. 7178 and 7308 were missing.
In a Resolution dated 14 February 2001, this Court directed Atty. Blaise Sambolledo-Barcena, Branch Clerk of Court, and Ms. Josephine Jose, criminal docket clerk-in-charge, both of RTC Branch 4, to explain the reported loss of the exhibits.
In a letter[1] dated 30 March 2001, Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena denied any liability for the loss of the exhibits and put the blame entirely on Ms. Jose. She explained that she never received the said exhibits. Records of the criminal cases allegedly revealed that Ms. Jose was the one who received them and failed to turn over the same to Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena. She averred that it was only when Judge Purugganan of RTC Branch 3 issued the Order dated 6 July 1999 directing Ms. Jose to submit the said exhibits to be presented as common exhibits in Criminal Case No. 7366 pending in that Branch did she come to know of their existence. Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena allegedly informed her superior, Judge Aquino, about the situation. She further alleged that when Ms. Jose was confronted about the matter, the latter readily admitted to her and to Judge Aquino that she (Ms. Jose) received and kept the exhibits and that she needed time to look for them. Consequently, Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena issued a memorandum, noted by Judge Aquino, requiring Ms. Jose, among others,to submit the exhibits to the court within five (5) days. In reply thereto as well as to Judge Purugganan's Order, Ms. Jose prayed for an extension of time to look for the exhibits in question.
In a letter[2] dated 20 April 2001, Ms. Jose narrated that on 9 July 1998, Police Senior Inspector Leonora Camarao appeared in the staff room of RTC Branch 4 to submit the said shabu evidence to Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena who instructed her to receive the same. After receiving the exhibits, Ms. Jose stored the shabu in the court store room. She averred that there are three persons who held a key to the store room she, Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena and Jacinto Danao, the clerk-in-charge of civil cases. She claimed that when she was ordered to present the exhibits, they were already missing and she could not locate them despite diligent efforts. She maintained that Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena never kept evidence presented in court but only allowed her to be responsible for all the documents and exhibits presented before the trial. She vowed that she had no intention to delay the disposition of the criminal cases much less obstruct the dispensation of justice. She appealed to this Court not to take the loss of the exhibits as a grave omission on her part in view of her thirty (30) years of dedicated service.
In a Memorandum[3] dated 8 December 2004, then Court Administrator Presbitero Velasco made the following recommendations:
Judge Velasco's evaluation and recommendation as found in his Report[8] are concise enough to allow reproduction hereunder:
Under the Civil Service Position description form (PDF CSO Form No. 01), the duties of Ms. Jose as Clerk III are: (1) receive and enter in the docket books all cases filed, including all subsequent pleadings documents and other pertinent communications, updates docket particularly the status of pending cases; (2) maintain other court books such as books on disposed cases, books on appealed cases, books on warrants of arrest issued, books on Judgment; (3) check and verify in the docket book all applications for clearances, prepares periodic report on the status of individual cases, and (4) other duties that may be assigned.[10] Meanwhile, Chapter VI of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court provides that one of the functions of a Clerk III is to maintain a systematic filing of criminal cases, civil cases, special civil actions, land registration cases and administrative cases.
Although the foregoing duties do not expressly include the duty of safekeeping of evidence/exhibits presented in court as the same is primarily the duty of the Branch Clerk of Court,[11] the same could be subsumed under "other duties" assigned to Ms. Jose as Clerk III. There is no doubt, as she herself categorically admitted, that she received the shabu exhibits as instructed and placed them in the store room but could not present them in court when ordered. She could not even offer any explanation as to their subsequent disappearance. The loss of the exhibits, the responsibility of insuring their proper filing and keeping of which lies on her, reflects her failure to faithfully discharge her functions. The performance of her duties could immensely affect, positively or negatively, the smooth administration of justice and the prompt delivery of public service. Hence, it was imperative for her to carry out her tasks efficiently and responsibly.
Ms. Jose is thus liable for simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months when committed for the first time. Her length of service in the judiciary, although spanning thirty (30) long years, cannot mitigate the gravity of her offense or the penalty she deserves. Being a veteran, she should have exercised more diligence and circumspection. In this light, length of service is not a magic word that once invoked will automatically be considered as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the party invoking it. When an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government.[12]
Neither can Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena evade liability in this instance. As the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 4, she was responsible for ensuring the efficient and timely recording, filing and over-all management of court records, including the safe-keeping of exhibits, documents and all properties of the said branch, subject only to the supervision and control of the Presiding Judge.[13] She cannot claim ignorance of the existence of the exhibits on the ground that she was not informed about them nor can she pass the blame for their loss to Ms. Jose who was then the immediate custodian of the lost exhibits. We have held that Branch Clerks of Court are chiefly responsible for the shortcomings of subordinates to whom the administrative function pertaining to them were delegated.[14] As the administrative officer of the court, it was her duty to supervise all subordinate personnel to ensure that they performed their duties well.[15] We thus hold her liable for simple neglect of duty.
We are not unmindful of the fact that this is the first offense of Ms. Jose and Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena and that both of them are no longer with the judiciary. Ms. Jose had already retired and Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena is now with the PAO. Nevertheless, they should be made to answer for the consequence of their neglect. We have held that respondent's cessation from office does not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against him while he was still in the service nor does it render said administrative case moot and academic.[16] The Court's jurisdiction at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint is not lost by the mere fact that the respondent had ceased in office during the pendency of the case.[17]
Since the penalty of suspension is no longer feasible in this case, the payment of a fine is deemed appropriate to likewise serve as an example to other clerks of court and court personnel to observe due diligence in the performance of their functions. It is beyond question that the administration of justice is a sacred task. As mirrors of the image of the Judiciary,they should serve with utmost reliability and accountability, diligence, and vigor in the performance of their officially designated duties.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Atty. Blaise Sambolledo-Barcena and Ms. Josephine Jose are hereby declared GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and ordered to pay a FINE of P5,000.00 each, directly payable to the Court within fifteen (15) days upon receipt hereof. Velasco, Jr., J, took no part in the deliberation of this case due to prior action in the Office of the Court Administrator; Ynares-Santiago, J., designated additional member pursuant to Adm. Circular No. 84-2007, as amended.
A.M. No. P-08-2544 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Blaise Sambolledo-Barcena, Branch Clerk of Court and Ms. Josephine Jose, Criminal docket clerk-in-charge, both of RTC, Branch 4, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan) [Formerly A.M. No. 01-1-06-RTC (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of Cases Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Brs. 1 to 5, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan)].-As a result of a judicial audit and physical inventory of cases conducted in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branches 1 to 5, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, it was discovered that five (5) exhibits consisting of shabu as evidence in Criminal Case Nos. 7178 and 7308 were missing.
In a Resolution dated 14 February 2001, this Court directed Atty. Blaise Sambolledo-Barcena, Branch Clerk of Court, and Ms. Josephine Jose, criminal docket clerk-in-charge, both of RTC Branch 4, to explain the reported loss of the exhibits.
In a letter[1] dated 30 March 2001, Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena denied any liability for the loss of the exhibits and put the blame entirely on Ms. Jose. She explained that she never received the said exhibits. Records of the criminal cases allegedly revealed that Ms. Jose was the one who received them and failed to turn over the same to Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena. She averred that it was only when Judge Purugganan of RTC Branch 3 issued the Order dated 6 July 1999 directing Ms. Jose to submit the said exhibits to be presented as common exhibits in Criminal Case No. 7366 pending in that Branch did she come to know of their existence. Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena allegedly informed her superior, Judge Aquino, about the situation. She further alleged that when Ms. Jose was confronted about the matter, the latter readily admitted to her and to Judge Aquino that she (Ms. Jose) received and kept the exhibits and that she needed time to look for them. Consequently, Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena issued a memorandum, noted by Judge Aquino, requiring Ms. Jose, among others,to submit the exhibits to the court within five (5) days. In reply thereto as well as to Judge Purugganan's Order, Ms. Jose prayed for an extension of time to look for the exhibits in question.
In a letter[2] dated 20 April 2001, Ms. Jose narrated that on 9 July 1998, Police Senior Inspector Leonora Camarao appeared in the staff room of RTC Branch 4 to submit the said shabu evidence to Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena who instructed her to receive the same. After receiving the exhibits, Ms. Jose stored the shabu in the court store room. She averred that there are three persons who held a key to the store room she, Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena and Jacinto Danao, the clerk-in-charge of civil cases. She claimed that when she was ordered to present the exhibits, they were already missing and she could not locate them despite diligent efforts. She maintained that Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena never kept evidence presented in court but only allowed her to be responsible for all the documents and exhibits presented before the trial. She vowed that she had no intention to delay the disposition of the criminal cases much less obstruct the dispensation of justice. She appealed to this Court not to take the loss of the exhibits as a grave omission on her part in view of her thirty (30) years of dedicated service.
In a Memorandum[3] dated 8 December 2004, then Court Administrator Presbitero Velasco made the following recommendations:
Premises considered it is respectfully recommended that the matter be treated as regular Administrative [M]atter against Ms. Josephine Jose, Clerk III[,] for being remiss in the safekeeping of the exhibits resulting to their loss. She neglected to perform her duty diligently, to safeguard the evidence entrusted to her. Considering her more than 30 years of service, we respectfully recommend that she be fined P3,000.00 for simple negligence, payable directly to the Court.On 23 February 2005, this Court resolved to refer this matter to the Executive Judge of RTC Tuguegarao, Cagayan for investigation, report and recommendation.[5] However, Executive Judge Vilma T. Pauig inhibited herself from conducting the said investigation as she is the godmother of Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena.[6] The case was thereafter assigned to Judge Orlando D. Beltran, then Acting Presiding Judge of RTC, Br. 4, Tuguegarao City, who later asked to be relieved as investigating judge. Finally, in a Resolution dated 11 July 2007, this Court referred this matter to Presiding Judge Rolando R. Velasco, RTC, Br. 6, Aparri, Cagayan for investigation, report and recommendation.[7]
As to former Clerk of Court Grace Sambolledo, she cannot feign innocence on the proceedings in her court, since at the time the evidence (1998-1999) was discovered to be lost, she was the Branch Clerk of Court in Branch 4. She was only transferred/detailed to the Office of the Clerk of Court sometime in March 2000. It was her duty to see to it that her subordinate to whom the safe keeping thereof was delegated performed her duties.
x x x x
We therefore find Atty. Sambolledo to have been inefficient in the performance of her duty. Considering that she is no longer with the judiciary we recommend that the matter be treated as a regular Administrative Matter against Atty. Grace Sambolledo and a fine of Five Thousand (5,000.00) be imposed for inefficiency, to be deducted from whatever gratuity/separation benefits that may be due Atty. Grace Sambolledo.[4]
Judge Velasco's evaluation and recommendation as found in his Report[8] are concise enough to allow reproduction hereunder:
This case was initiated way back in the year 2000. Mrs. Josephine Jose has already retired and undersigned was informed that she received all her retirement benefits. Atty. Blaise Sambolledo-Barcena[,] former Clerk of Court of the RTC, Branch 4 transferred to the PNP and then at present is a PAO lawyer at (sic) Tuguegarao City.Although we agree with the findings of Judge Velasco that indeed both Ms. Jose and Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena had been negligent, we find the recommended penalty too light considering the circumstances of this case, specifically when what were lost consisted of shabu, a prohibited drug that could have untold harmful effects to the public.
It is established that five exhibits in Criminal Cases (sic) Nos. 7178 and 7308 were missing and cannot be located. Mrs. Jose and Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena who were in charge of these exhibits were ordered to explain regarding the loss of the exhibits. They gave their respective explanations and undersigned believed that they will not change their explanation in connection with the loss of the exhibits. Hence, there is no need for further investigation of this case. It is a matter of determining whether Mrs. Jose and Atty. Barcena are guilty of negligence in connection with the loss of exhibits. [The] Court Administrator, in the above-mentioned Memorandum dated December 8, 2004 found that both Atty. Barcena and Mrs. Jose were negligent in handling the exhibits and recommended a fine of P3,000.00 for Mrs. Jose and P5,000.00 for Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena. Undersigned adheres to the findings of the Court Administrator that Mrs. Jose and Atty. Barcena were guilty of negligence in handling the exhibits in Crim. Cases Nos. 7178 and 7308. Furthermore, the principle of res ipsa loquitor is applicable in this case that those in charge of the exhibits should be responsible for its loss if they cannot give an explanation which will exculpate them.
Considering that Mrs. Jose has already retired and because she had rendered long service in the Judiciary and this is the only case in which she is involved, undersigned recommends that only a REPRIMAND be imposed on her for her negligence. On the part of Atty. Barcena, she is now with the PAO and this is the first case that she was found negligent, undersigned likewise recommends that a REPRIMAND be imposed as her penalty for her negligence.[9]
Under the Civil Service Position description form (PDF CSO Form No. 01), the duties of Ms. Jose as Clerk III are: (1) receive and enter in the docket books all cases filed, including all subsequent pleadings documents and other pertinent communications, updates docket particularly the status of pending cases; (2) maintain other court books such as books on disposed cases, books on appealed cases, books on warrants of arrest issued, books on Judgment; (3) check and verify in the docket book all applications for clearances, prepares periodic report on the status of individual cases, and (4) other duties that may be assigned.[10] Meanwhile, Chapter VI of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court provides that one of the functions of a Clerk III is to maintain a systematic filing of criminal cases, civil cases, special civil actions, land registration cases and administrative cases.
Although the foregoing duties do not expressly include the duty of safekeeping of evidence/exhibits presented in court as the same is primarily the duty of the Branch Clerk of Court,[11] the same could be subsumed under "other duties" assigned to Ms. Jose as Clerk III. There is no doubt, as she herself categorically admitted, that she received the shabu exhibits as instructed and placed them in the store room but could not present them in court when ordered. She could not even offer any explanation as to their subsequent disappearance. The loss of the exhibits, the responsibility of insuring their proper filing and keeping of which lies on her, reflects her failure to faithfully discharge her functions. The performance of her duties could immensely affect, positively or negatively, the smooth administration of justice and the prompt delivery of public service. Hence, it was imperative for her to carry out her tasks efficiently and responsibly.
Ms. Jose is thus liable for simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, punishable by suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months when committed for the first time. Her length of service in the judiciary, although spanning thirty (30) long years, cannot mitigate the gravity of her offense or the penalty she deserves. Being a veteran, she should have exercised more diligence and circumspection. In this light, length of service is not a magic word that once invoked will automatically be considered as a mitigating circumstance in favor of the party invoking it. When an officer or employee is disciplined, the object sought is not the punishment of such officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in the government.[12]
Neither can Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena evade liability in this instance. As the Branch Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 4, she was responsible for ensuring the efficient and timely recording, filing and over-all management of court records, including the safe-keeping of exhibits, documents and all properties of the said branch, subject only to the supervision and control of the Presiding Judge.[13] She cannot claim ignorance of the existence of the exhibits on the ground that she was not informed about them nor can she pass the blame for their loss to Ms. Jose who was then the immediate custodian of the lost exhibits. We have held that Branch Clerks of Court are chiefly responsible for the shortcomings of subordinates to whom the administrative function pertaining to them were delegated.[14] As the administrative officer of the court, it was her duty to supervise all subordinate personnel to ensure that they performed their duties well.[15] We thus hold her liable for simple neglect of duty.
We are not unmindful of the fact that this is the first offense of Ms. Jose and Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena and that both of them are no longer with the judiciary. Ms. Jose had already retired and Atty. Sambolledo-Barcena is now with the PAO. Nevertheless, they should be made to answer for the consequence of their neglect. We have held that respondent's cessation from office does not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against him while he was still in the service nor does it render said administrative case moot and academic.[16] The Court's jurisdiction at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint is not lost by the mere fact that the respondent had ceased in office during the pendency of the case.[17]
Since the penalty of suspension is no longer feasible in this case, the payment of a fine is deemed appropriate to likewise serve as an example to other clerks of court and court personnel to observe due diligence in the performance of their functions. It is beyond question that the administration of justice is a sacred task. As mirrors of the image of the Judiciary,they should serve with utmost reliability and accountability, diligence, and vigor in the performance of their officially designated duties.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Atty. Blaise Sambolledo-Barcena and Ms. Josephine Jose are hereby declared GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and ordered to pay a FINE of P5,000.00 each, directly payable to the Court within fifteen (15) days upon receipt hereof. Velasco, Jr., J, took no part in the deliberation of this case due to prior action in the Office of the Court Administrator; Ynares-Santiago, J., designated additional member pursuant to Adm. Circular No. 84-2007, as amended.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 51-55.
[2] Id. at 281-282.
[3] Id. at 472-503.
[4] Id. at 494-495.
[5] Id. at 504-505.
[6] Id. at 507.
[7] Id. at 551.
[8] Id. at 521-530.
[9] Id. at 530.
[10] Id. at 495.
[11] Section 7, Rule 136, Rules of Court; A.M. No. P-98-1275, 26 March 2006; A.M. P-01-1486, 21 February 2002.
[12] Pedro C. Abesa v. Judge Jose P. Nacional, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1605, 8 June 2006.
[13] Office of the Court Administrator v. Cabe, A.M. No. P-96-1185, 26 June 2000 citing Office of the Court Administrator vs. Benedicto, 296 SCRA 62,74 (1998).
[14] Id.
[15] Marcial Galahad T. Makasiar v. Fe L. Gomintong, Clerk III, A.M. No. P-05-2061, 19 August 2005.
[16] Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Hamoy, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1830, 17 January 2005.
[17] Id.
