ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[A.M. No. P-00-1402.March 27, 2001]

ALAJAR vs. CLERK OF COURT MAGDALENA LOMETILLO, et al.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 27 2001.

Administrative Matter No. P-00-1402(Gredia G. Alajar vs. Clerk of Court Magdalena Lometillo and Assistant Clerk of Court Gerry Sumaculub.)

Delay in transmitting the records of the case to the Court of Appeals for five (5) years constitutes neglect of duty and warrants disciplinary action.

On April 7, 1997, Gredia G. Alajar filed a letter complaint 1 Rollo , p. 3.with the Department of Justice charging respondents Clerk of Court Magdalena Lometillo and Assistant Clerk of Court Gerry Sumaculub with gross neglect of duty relative to Civil Case No. 14254 entitled People of the Philippines versus Perla A. Enalao, et al.

Alajar alleged in her complaint that there has been a delay of more than eighteen (18) months in the transmittal of record of Case No. 14254 from the Court of First Instance (RTC) Branch 25 , Iloilo City to the Court of Appeals.

The antecedents are as follows:

On July 31, 1995, Atty. Cornelio Salinas, counsel for intervenor and complainant Gradia G. Alajar filed a notice of appeal in Case No. 14254 of the Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City from the decision dated July 4, 1995. 2 In Civil Case Number 14254.

On August 3, 1995, the trial court gave due course to the notice of appeal and ordered the court stenographer to submit the stenographic notes within a period of one (1) week. On February 5, 1997, Atty. Marie Yvette D. Go, Clerk of Court, RTC Branch 25 forwarded the records of Civil Case No. 14254 entitled "Republic of the Philippines vs. Perla Enalao, et al." to the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo, Iloilo City incurring a delay of about one (1) year, six (6) months and two (2) days.

On February 17, 1997, the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court mailed the records to the Court of Appeals via registered mail. The transcripts, however, were not transmitted.

On January 15, 1997, Judge Bartolome M. Fanunal, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 25 ordered court stenographer Phoebe Pelobello to submit her stenographic notes within one (1) week. She failed to comply with the order.

Hence, the letter complaint against the respondents herein. 3 Filed on April 7, 1997.

On March 13, 2000 the Court of Appeals, issued a resolution requiring stenographer Phoebe Pelobello to comply with the Resolution dated September 27, 1999 and March 3, 1999 and to show cause within ten (10) days from notice why payment of her salary shall not be suspended. Court stenographer Pelobello failed to comply with the Order of the trial court as well as with the Order of the Court of Appeals. The transcripts were not transmitted.

During the investigation of the case, on October 5, 2000, the Executive Judge discovered that Atty. Magdalena Lometillo, the clerk of court, and Arty. Gerry Sumaculub had no hand in the matter as the delay was incurred in Branch 25 4 TSN, October 5, 2000, pp.3-4.where Atty. Marie Yvette Go was the branch clerk of court and Phoebe Pelobello was the court stenographer.

On October 12, 2000, stenographer Pelobello admitted that there was delay in the transmittal because she could not find her transcripts after they transferred to another office. She found her notes attached to other records. When required by the Court of Appeals to show cause and explain why her salary should not be ordered suspended for failure to comply with the resolution dated September 27, 1999 requiring her to submit the transcript of stenographic notes taken on Januaiy 9, 1990, Pelobello admitted that she did not submit any explanation. 5 TSN, October 12, 2000, p. 5.

When asked if she knew that she was the cause of delay in the resolution of the case, she said that she was not aware of that. She further explained that there was no reminder for her to submit. 6 TSN, October 12, 2000, p. 6.

Stenographer Pelobello transmitted the transcript only on September 1, 2000.

On October 16, 2000, Executive Judge Tito G. Gustillo remanded the following report and recommendation:

"The delay of One (1) year, Six (6) months and two (2) days was incurred by RTC, Branch 25, Iloilo City because Court Stenographer Phoebe Pelobello misplaced her transcript of stenographic notes taken on January 9, 1990 in Civil Case No. 14254 entitled "People of the Philippines versus Perla Enalao, et al."

"The order of the Court dated January 15, 1997 issued by Judge Bartolome M. Fanu�al, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 25 directing stenographer to submit her stenographic notes within One (1) week from receipt of said Order as well as the Resolution of the 15th Division, Court of Appeals dated March 13, 2000 requiring stenographer Phoebe Pelobello to comply with the Resolution dated September 27, 1999 and March 3, 1999 and to show cause within ten (10) days from notice why payment of salary shall not be suspended notwithstanding, the said Court stenographer failed to comply with the Order of the trial court as well as with the Order of the Honorable Court of Appeals.

"It was only on September 1, 2000 that Court Stenographer Phoebe Pelobello was able to submit the transcript of stenographic notes taken on January 9, 2000 and after a delay of FIVE (5) YEARS and TWENTY EIGHT (28) DAYS.

"The undersigned finds and holds Court Stenographer Pelobello, RTC Branch 25, Iloilo City, as the real culprit for the unreasonable delay of Five (5) years and Twenty Eight (28) days in transmitting her transcript of stenographic notes to the Honorable Court of Appeals.

"That she misplaced her transcript of stenographic notes is no excuse for the imposition of the Administrative sanction that should be meted against her. She did not even exhibit any remorse of conscience or display repentance for the gross negligence and infidelity in the custody of official document she committed.

"The Court likewise finds the Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Yvette D. Go liable for the delay under the principle of command responsibility.

"WHEREFORE, the undersigned investigator-designate hereby finds Court Stenographer Phoebe Pelobello GUILTY for gross negligence in the performance of her duties as such

stenographer and recommends the severest penalty short of dismissal.

"Clerk of Court Atty. Marie Yvette D. Go, RTC, Branch 25 is likewise found wanting in following up Court Stenographer Phoebe Pelobello for submission of the required stenographic notes and hereby recommends that she shall be CENSURED this being her first offense." 7 Rollo , pp. 93-95. (Emphasis ours.)

The prompt and orderly transmittal of records of appealed cases is a duty of the branch clerk of court. Atty. Go ought to know that she must transmit the records of the case within five (5) days after the filing of the notice of appeal in criminal cases 8 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, Rule 122 Section 8.and within a period of thirty (30) days after the perfection of the appeals in civil cases. 9 1997 Rules on Civil procedure, as amended, Rule 41 Section 10.Failure of the clerk of court to transmit the records of the case constitutes negligence and warrants disciplinary action. 10 Report on Judicial Audit Conducted In RTC - Branches 29 and 59, Toledo City 292 SCRA 8 [1998], citing Ramos vs. Gregorio, 224 SCRA 652 [1993].The rule requires prompt transmittal of the records of appealed cases to the appellate court to ensure the speedy disposition of cases. Otherwise, the speedy administration of justice would be hampered. 11 Ibid ., citing Juntilla vs. Calleja, 262 SCRA 291 [1996].

We have ruled that the clerk of court is an essential officer of the judicial system. As such officer, he performs a delicate administrative function vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice. 12 Ibid .

Atty. Go admitted that she overlooked and forgot all about the appeal until January of 1997. Despite notification to the stenographer Pelobello, the latter failed to transmit the transcripts of the case until September 1, 2000.

Public office is indeed a public trust, and a court stenographer, without a doubt, violates this trust by her failure to fulfill her duty as such stenographer. 13 Ceniza-Guevarra vs.Magabanua, 304 SCRA 113 (1999).

In view of the foregoing, the case against respondents Magdalena Lometillo and Gerry Sumaculub is DISMISSED. The Court Administrator is ordered to file an administrative case against Clerk of Court Atty. Marie Yvette D. Go, RTC, Iloilo, Branch 25 and Court Stenographer Phoebe Pelobello within ten (10) days from notice.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com