February 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > February 2009 Resolutions >
[OCA IPI No. 08-2973-P : February 18, 2009] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. CLERK OF COURT RAY U. VELASCO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 14, DAVAO CITY:
[OCA IPI No. 08-2973-P : February 18, 2009]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. CLERK OF COURT RAY U. VELASCO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 14, DAVAO CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 18 February 2009:
OCA IPI No. 08-2973-P- (Office of the Court Administrator v. Clerk of Court Ray U. Velasco, Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Davao City)
RESOLUTION
In the Resolution dated September 25, 2008 in A.M. No. P-07-2380 entitled "Abscence Without Leave (AWOL) of Ms. Lydia A. Ramil, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Davao City," the Court's Third Division ordered Clerk of Court Atty. Rey U. Velasco (Velasco) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, Davao City, to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for his failure to duly supervise the employees in their branch particularly in their use of bundy clocks and the observance of OCA Circular No. 7-2003. In said case, Lydia A. Ramil (Ramil), Court Stenographer III of the same branch, was found guilty of simple neglect of duty and insubordination for failing to submit her bundy cards from November 2005 to November 2006, and for failing to comply with OCA directives ordering her to submit the same. Ramil was ordered suspended for one month and one day without pay and other benefits with warning that a repetition of the same or similar offenses shall be dealt with more severely.
In his Explanation dated October 24, 2008, Velasco begged the indulgence of the Honorable Court and stated that: he was never remiss in his duties and responsibilities over his subordinates as he in fact set a time for them to pass their respective daily time records (DTRs); even if an employee reneged on his duty to submit his DTR, the DTRs will still be transmitted; the letters addressed to Caridad Pabello of the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) enclosing the time cards and application for leave of Court Stenographer Ramil for the months of November 2005 to November 2006 are mere formality and a correspondence from one office to another; a perusal of the DTR of Branch 14 submitted to the OAS would show that only Ramil failed to submit her DTR and that he had advised her, time and again, that an administrative case will be filed against her, with the knowledge of then Presiding Judge William M. Layague.
The Court finds Velasco's explanation not satisfactory.
Clerks of court are essential and ranking officers of the judicial system who perform delicate administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice.[1] They play a key role in the complement of the court and cannot be permitted to slacken on their jobs under one pretext or another.[2]
Respondent himself admitted that Ramil failed to submit her DTR from November 2005 to 2006 in violation of OCA Circular No. 7-2003 which requires the accomplishment and submission of DTRs/Bundy Cards. Velasco failed to present any proof, however, apart from his assertion, that he exerted efforts to make Ramil comply with the same. It is also on record that Pabello of the OAS wrote Velasco a letter dated November 2, 2006 asking the service of the letter to Ramil warning her of her unauthorized absences and requesting proof of service of the same. Ramil responded, however, only on December 2006.
Velasco should be mindful that as a Branch Clerk of Court and the administrative supervisor of his branch, it is his duty to ensure the compliance of his subordinates with circulars and orders of this Court. Clearly, Velasco was remiss in his supervisory duties particularly in ensuring Ramil's compliance with the rules and directives regarding her DTRs/Bundy Cards. The Court notes however that this is Velasco's first administrative infraction and he readily asked the indulgence of the Court. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that a reprimand is sufficient in this case.
WHEREFORE, Clerk of Court Atty. Rey U. Velasco of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Davao City is REPRIMANDED to be "more circumspect in the performance of his duties and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
OCA IPI No. 08-2973-P- (Office of the Court Administrator v. Clerk of Court Ray U. Velasco, Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Davao City)
RESOLUTION
In the Resolution dated September 25, 2008 in A.M. No. P-07-2380 entitled "Abscence Without Leave (AWOL) of Ms. Lydia A. Ramil, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Davao City," the Court's Third Division ordered Clerk of Court Atty. Rey U. Velasco (Velasco) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, Davao City, to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for his failure to duly supervise the employees in their branch particularly in their use of bundy clocks and the observance of OCA Circular No. 7-2003. In said case, Lydia A. Ramil (Ramil), Court Stenographer III of the same branch, was found guilty of simple neglect of duty and insubordination for failing to submit her bundy cards from November 2005 to November 2006, and for failing to comply with OCA directives ordering her to submit the same. Ramil was ordered suspended for one month and one day without pay and other benefits with warning that a repetition of the same or similar offenses shall be dealt with more severely.
In his Explanation dated October 24, 2008, Velasco begged the indulgence of the Honorable Court and stated that: he was never remiss in his duties and responsibilities over his subordinates as he in fact set a time for them to pass their respective daily time records (DTRs); even if an employee reneged on his duty to submit his DTR, the DTRs will still be transmitted; the letters addressed to Caridad Pabello of the Office of Administrative Services (OAS) enclosing the time cards and application for leave of Court Stenographer Ramil for the months of November 2005 to November 2006 are mere formality and a correspondence from one office to another; a perusal of the DTR of Branch 14 submitted to the OAS would show that only Ramil failed to submit her DTR and that he had advised her, time and again, that an administrative case will be filed against her, with the knowledge of then Presiding Judge William M. Layague.
The Court finds Velasco's explanation not satisfactory.
Clerks of court are essential and ranking officers of the judicial system who perform delicate administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice.[1] They play a key role in the complement of the court and cannot be permitted to slacken on their jobs under one pretext or another.[2]
Respondent himself admitted that Ramil failed to submit her DTR from November 2005 to 2006 in violation of OCA Circular No. 7-2003 which requires the accomplishment and submission of DTRs/Bundy Cards. Velasco failed to present any proof, however, apart from his assertion, that he exerted efforts to make Ramil comply with the same. It is also on record that Pabello of the OAS wrote Velasco a letter dated November 2, 2006 asking the service of the letter to Ramil warning her of her unauthorized absences and requesting proof of service of the same. Ramil responded, however, only on December 2006.
Velasco should be mindful that as a Branch Clerk of Court and the administrative supervisor of his branch, it is his duty to ensure the compliance of his subordinates with circulars and orders of this Court. Clearly, Velasco was remiss in his supervisory duties particularly in ensuring Ramil's compliance with the rules and directives regarding her DTRs/Bundy Cards. The Court notes however that this is Velasco's first administrative infraction and he readily asked the indulgence of the Court. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that a reprimand is sufficient in this case.
WHEREFORE, Clerk of Court Atty. Rey U. Velasco of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Davao City is REPRIMANDED to be "more circumspect in the performance of his duties and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
By:
LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Mikrostar Industrial Corporation v. Mabalot, A.M. No. P-05-2097, December 15, 2005, 478 SCRA 6.
[2] Becina v. Vivero, A. M. No. P-04-1797, March 25, 2004, 426 SCRA 261.
[3] A.M. No. P-07-2380, rollo, p.3.
