ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1876-P. August 9, 2004]

VAN DER MEE vs. RESURRECCION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 9 2004 .

A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1876-P (Martinus A.T.A. Van Der Mee vs. Rommel S. Resurreccion, Legal Researcher, RTC, Branch 21, Malolos, Bulacan.)

Considering the Report dated May 25, 2004 of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

...Filed with the Office of the Court Administrator is a COMPLAINT dated 13 February 2004 of Martinus A.T.A. Van Der Mee charging Rommel S. Resurreccion, Legal Researcher, RTC, Branch 21, Malolos, Bulacan, presently detailed at RTC, Branch 14, Manila, with negligence and/or malicious delay in the administration of justice relative to Civil Case No. 194-M-93 entitled "Martinus Adrianus Theodorus Arnuldus Van Der Mee vs. Clarita Paguia" for legal separation, damages and injunction with prayer for restraining order and/or preliminary injunction.

Complainant states that on 7 April 1994, the Hon. Judge Cesar M. Solis rendered a decision in the afore-cited civil case annulling his marriage with Clarita Paguia. In the decision, it was also ordered that copy of the decision be forwarded to the Local Civil Registry of the City of Manila and the Census and Statistics Office for their guidance. However, complainant came to know later that the judgment was not annotated on his marriage contract. Upon further verification, he also found out that no copy of the decision was ever forwarded by the respondent to the said offices. In a phone inquiry regarding this failure to forward copy of the said decision, respondent told complainant that he is not working anymore with RTC, Branch 21 of Malolos, Bulacan.

Complainant points out that under Article 409 of the Civil Code, in cases of annulment of marriage it "shall be the duty of the Clerk of Court to ascertain whether the same (decree of annulment) has been registered, and if this has not been done, to send a copy of the said decree to the civil registry of the city or municipality where the court is functioning." For respondent's omission of the duty as required by law, he can be held liable under Article 27 of the Civil Code as well as under Article 207 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) for malicious delay in the administration of justice.

On 4-5 February 2004, complainant took it upon himself to personally deliver copy of the said decision to the Local Civil Registry Offices of Malolos and Manila, Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in Makati, and National Statistics Office (NSO) in Sta. Mesa, Manila.

In a COMMENT dated 12 April 2004, respondent affirms that he was indeed the Acting Branch Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 21 of Malolos, Bulacan sometime in 1993. He explains that it is the duty of the then Civil Cases Clerk, Mr. Emmanuel Ople, of the same court to cause the mailing of copies of the decisions, orders, and notices of civil cases assigned to him.

Granting that Article 409 of the Civil Code directs the respondent as Acting Branch Clerk of Court to ascertain whether the 7 April 1994 Decision was sent to the proper Civil Registry Office, the same would not be possible because the records of the case were consequently transmitted to the Office of the Clerk of Court for re-raffle as the presiding judge of Branch 21, in his order dated 30 January 1995, inhibited himself from further hearing the case.

In any case, no malice nor gross negligence could be attributed to the respondent because he performed his duty of supervision over his staff with the required level of diligence. If any, the negligence was committed by Ople who failed to obey "prior verbal instruction" from the respondent, as well as the mandate of his duty as Clerk III.

Lastly, respondent cannot be held liable for malicious delay in the administration of justice because this felony can only be committed by a judge and cannot be made applicable to the respondent.

EVALUATION: In no uncertain terms, the 7 April 1994 Decision of Judge Solis directs respondent Resurrection to furnish the Local Civil Registrar of Manila and the NSO with copy of the same decision. This, respondent failed to do and by way of avoidance, he shifted the blame to the then Civil Cases Clerk Ople upon whom, according to the respondent, the duty to send the decision ultimately rests.

It has to be stressed that the efficient administration of justice cannot accept as an excuse the shifting of blame from one court personnel to another. As the Acting Branch Clerk of Court, Resurrection has administrative supervision over court personnel and it devolves upon him to see to it that their duties are properly discharged. He is chiefly responsible for the shortcomings of subordinates to whom administrative functions normally pertaining to them are delegated (Panuncio vs. Icaro-Velasco, 297 SCRA 159).

According to Resurrection, the transmittal of the records of the case to the Office of the Clerk of Court for re-raffle after the presiding judge inhibited himself from further hearing the case rendered it impossible for him to forward [a] copy of the decision to the proper registry office. It has to be emphasized however that the records of the case were ordered to be transmitted about nine (9) months after the decision was rendered. If respondent was assiduous in the performance of his official duties which include, inter alia, that of supervising his subordinates, [a] copy of the decision could have been forwarded promptly after it was rendered. The failure of respondent Resurrection to discharge this duty imposed upon him with all due diligence may well be considered as indicative of negligence on his part which cannot be countenanced and which cannot be taken lightly.

Nonetheless, we are mindful of the congested nature of the court's docket and considering that the respondent was merely a clerk of court in an acting capacity when the act complained of transpired, the lapses imputed against Resurrection may well be considered unintentional and usual in the ordinary course of the heavy volume of official business. Also, it had not been sufficiently shown that complainant was greatly prejudiced thereby. We also take into consideration of [sic] the fact that the instant administrative complaint against the respondent is the first in his sixteen (16) long years of service. Besides, negligence is relative or comparative, not an absolute term, and its application depends upon the situation of the parties, and the decree [sic] of care and vigilance which the circumstances reasonably impose (US vs. Juanillo, 23 Phil. 212). In this case, we are inclined to absolve respondent from the charge of negligence in the performance of official duties.

Anent the charge of malicious delay in the administration of justice, respondent as a mere court personnel cannot be made liable thereof. Be that as it may, a perusal of the complaint of Martinus A.T.A. Van Der Mee fails to disclose any allegation that the delay, if any, was borne of malicious intent. Malice connotes that the act complained of must be the result of a deliberate evil intent and does not cover a mere voluntary act (People vs. Malabanan, 62 Phil. 786). Considering that there was not a single specific act alleged in the complaint imputing malice to the respondent, thus failing to prove that the act complained of was malicious, the charge must fail.

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted to the Honorable Court our recommendation that the administrative case against respondent Rommel S. Resurreccion be DISMISSED and that he be WARNED and ORDERED to be more careful and circumspect in the performance of his duties with a stern warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation thereon to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court hereby approves the same.

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Rommel S. Resurreccion is hereby DISMISSED and he is ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties to avoid a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDlCHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE