ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. P-02-1616.
YABUT vs. ESTRELLA
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
A.M. No. P-02-1616 (PAULINA G. YABUT vs. TERESITA M. ESTRELLA.)
This refers to the complaint
[1]
cralaw
filed with the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) dated
On
Realizing that this Court committed an
error in its decision dated
"1. to vacate immediately Lot 2374-1-5 xxx."
Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Malolos, Bulacan, where this case has been appealed.
SO ORDERED.
Pandi, Bulacan,
Yabut, the defendant in that case, was not furnished a copy of the order. The Philippine Postal Corporation issued a certification [3] cralaw to the effect that the order was sent only to the clerk of court of RTC Malolos, not to Yabut.
In her supplemental complaint
[4]
cralaw
dated
When respondent was directed to comment on the complaint, she claimed she did not furnish complainant (the defendant in MTC Case No. 063-98) a copy because the order itself directed that the same be forwarded to the RTC clerk of court of Malolos and not to complainant. Further, the error which the order sought to correct was a mere typographical error which would not affect the merit of the appeal.
The OCA recommended that respondent be reprimanded, with a warning that a repetition of the same act would be dealt with more severely.
After evaluating the evidence submitted, we affirm the recommendation of the OCA.
Respondent, as clerk of court, had control and supervision over all court records and, together with the judge, directed the court personnel in releasing decisions, orders, processes subpoenas and notices. [5] cralaw
There is no doubt that there was failure on the part of respondent to furnish complainant a copy of the order. This was in violation of her duty and moreover, a violation of the procedural rule that every judgment, resolution, order, pleading subsequent to the complaint, written motion, notice, appearance, demand, offer of judgment or similar papers shall be filed with the court, and served upon the parties affected. [6] (italics ours)
It was not a valid defense on her part that the directive was supposedly to send the order to the Clerk of Court of the Malolos RTC. Considering that the matter involved the correction of a decision, respondent should have known that complainant, being a party thereto, ought to have been furnished a copy of the order. This was a very simple procedure which every clerk of court is presumed to know.
Her negligence could not be excused by her claim that the order would not affect the outcome of the case. Being a ministerial duty, respondent was not in a position to determine which matters were important to the case and which were not. Consequently, she could not choose to send or not to send orders, based on her own discretion.
As clerk of court, respondent occupied a very sensitive position that required competence and efficiency to ensure the public's confidence in the administration of justice. She was expected to uphold the law and implement the pertinent rules, and to be assiduous in the performance of her duties since she performed delicate administrative functions that were essential to the prompt and proper administration of justice. Thus, she could not be permitted to slacken on her job under one pretext or another. [7] cralaw
Under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple neglect carries the penalty of suspension. Considering that this is the respondent's first infraction, however, we deem it proper to impose the penalty of reprimand instead of suspension.
WHEREFORE, as recommended by the OCA, we hold respondent liable for simple neglect and impose on her the penalty of REPRIMAND, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same act will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 1-3.
[2] Id., p. 5.
[3] Id. , pp. 10-11.
[4] Id., p. 14.
[5] cralaw Specific Duties of Staff Assistant of Clerks of Court, as cited in OCA Memorandum; Id., p. 40.
[6] cralaw Section 4, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court.
[7] cralaw Saturnino Oba�a, Jr. v. Judge Armando Ricafort , A.M. No. MTJ-04-1545, 27 May 2004.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
