FIRST DIVISION
TIMOTEO M. CASANOVA,
JR.,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-02-1595
April 3, 2003
-versus-
FELIZARDO P.
CAJAYON,
CLERK III, RTC, BRANCH 45,
SAN JOSE, OCCIDENTAL
MINDORO,
Respondent.
R E S O L U T I
O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
Complainant Timoteo
M. Casanova, Jr., OIC Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court
of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, Branch 45, filed with the Office of
the
Court Administrator a verified letter-complaint,[1]
against Felizardo P. Cajayon, Clerk III of the same court, for neglect
of duty, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official
duties,
refusal to perform official duties, refusal to obey lawful orders of
competent
authorities and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant alleged
that since 1989, when respondent was appointed as process server, and
after
he was promoted as Clerk III in the RTC of San Jose, Occidental
Mindoro,
Branch 45, respondent often reported late for work and did nothing
while
inside the office. Complainant first brought the matter to the
Presiding
Judge, Restituto Aguilar, but he was ignored. Complainant likewise
reported
the misconduct of respondent to Judge Fernando Caunan, who replaced
Judge
Aguilar after he retired from the service. However, Judge Caunan merely
reprimanded respondent for not preparing the monthly report of the
court’s
cases.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant further
averred that sometime in September 1997, respondent received a telegram
from the Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court
Administrator
(OCA) requiring him to submit his daily time records (DTR). The OCA
sent
another letter pertaining to respondents’ DTR to Judge Ernesto
Pagayatan,
Executive Judge of the RTC of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro. Respondent
received the letter but just kept it. After complainant discovered what
respondent did, he reported the matter to Judge Pagayatan, who then
instructed
complainant to answer the letter. Thus, complainant wrote to the Office
of Administrative Services of this Court to explain that he did not
sign
the DTR of respondent because he refused to prepare the monthly report
of cases for the months of April to September 1997, despite repeated
instructions
and advice of his supervisors.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On October 6, 1998,
the Court Administrator sent a telegram to the Presiding Judge of RTC,
Branch 45 requiring the submission of semestral docket inventory of
cases
for the periods ending June 1996, December 1996, June 1997, December
1997,
June 1998 and December 1998. This communication was given to respondent
for compliance, but he failed to act on the matter.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a letter to the Court
Administrator dated February 1, 1999,[2]
complainant disclosed that respondent was very close to Judge Ernesto
Pagayatan,
the Executive Judge of Branch 46 of RTC, San Jose, Mindoro Occidental.
Thus, he suggested that Judge Inocencio M. Jaurigue of RTC, Branch 44,
Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro be designated to conduct the investigation
of this case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent filed a Comment,[3]
denying all the accusations against him. He admits that as process
server,
he would oftentimes go to the IBP building to serve court processes to
lawyers. After serving those processes, he would immediately return to
his office and wait for other court processes that may be assigned to
him
for service. He also claims that he was punctual in reporting for work
as shown in his daily time records.cralaw:red
Respondent further claims
that he likewise diligently discharged his duties even after he was
promoted
as Clerk III in 1994. In 1995, he even prepared the monthly report of
cases
that should have been done by the branch clerk of court. He averred
that
he complied with the letter of the Court Administrator requiring him to
submit his DTRs. As to the inventory of cases, he claimed that he
already
submitted the same to the OCA per his letter-endorsement dated January
29, 1999.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On October 4, 2000,
we referred the case to Executive Judge Ernesto Pagayatan of RTC, San
Jose,
Occidental Mindoro for investigation.[4]
Judge Pagayatan recommended the dismissal of the complaint on the basis
of the withdrawal of the complaint and respondent’s undertaking to
improve
his performance.[5]
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In its evaluation of
the case, the Court Administrator cited the case of Gacho v. Fuentes,
Jr.,[6]
where it was held that the withdrawal of an administrative complaint
does
not result in its automatic dismissal. Hence, he recommended that the
case
be reinvestigated,[7]
and designated Judge Jaurigue of RTC, Branch 44, Mamburao, Occidental
Mindoro,
to conduct the re-investigation.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After the re-investigation,
Judge Jaurigue submitted his report,[9]
finding that the filing of the instant complaint was caused by a
misunderstanding
between the parties, as a result of which respondent’s performance of
duties
became the subject of complainant’s criticism. Judge Juarigue
recommended
that both complainant and respondent be reprimanded with a stern
warning
that a repetition of similar acts will merit drastic action.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On April 25, 2002, after
due consideration of the aforesaid finding and recommendation of the
investigating
judge, the Office of the Court Administrator adopted the recommendation
of Judge Jaurigue.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Save for the recommended
penalty on complainant, we agree with the findings and recommendations
of the investigating Judge and the Office of the Court of Administrator
that both the complainant and respondent displayed conduct which merit
the Court’s wield of administrative supervision.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We note that the penalty
of reprimand was imposed on complainant on the basis of a motu proprio
finding by the investigating Judge that the instant complaint was
merely
a product of misunderstanding between complainant and respondent. Such
imposition of reprimand on complainant cannot be done without seriously
violating the very fundamental and constitutionally protected right of
a person to be informed of the nature of the charge for which he is
being
held accountable.[10]
If at all, his act merely trifled the time of this Court to attend to
its
other business that behooves its immediate attention. To reprimand
complainant
in this case is, therefore, not in order. Thus, we deem fit that
complainant
be merely admonished for his indecorous actuation in this
administrative
case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Furthermore, the record
is bereft of evidence to support complainant’s allegation that the
respondent
was always absent or late for work. The Daily Time Reports[11]
of respondent were in fact countersigned by complainant as OIC Branch
Clerk
of the RTC, Branch 45, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro.[12]
The DTRs show that he was neither absent nor late in reporting for work
during the periods alleged by complainant. Likewise, complainant
testified
that he usually gave respondent and other employees a very satisfactory
rating due to their voluminous work. In fact for the period of January
to June 1995 the rating of respondent was "Very Satisfactory."[13]
These ratings belie the claim that the respondent was remiss in his
duty
as Clerk III. If there was any truth to complainant’s claim about
respondent’s
alleged failure to perform his duties, such misbehavior could have been
reflected in his performance ratings since these were based on
respondents’
general performance during the whole rating period.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, complainant’s
act of unilaterally withdrawing his complaint despite being fully aware
that respondent was remiss in his duty in preparing the monthly reports
betrayed his inefficiency as Officer-in-Charge Branch Clerk of Court.
There
was no reason for him to withdraw his complaint since there was no
question
that respondent was negligent in the performance of his duty.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand, we
find respondent liable for his failure to submit the required Docket
Inventory
on time, a fact which he admitted, citing as justification the
voluminous
cases in the docket.[14]
The heavy caseload is not a valid justification for respondent’s
failure
to seasonably submit the required docket inventories and monthly
reports.[15]
It may not be underscored enough that the office of a clerk of court
involves
the performance of delicate administrative duties essential to the
prompt
and proper administration of justice.[16]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As correctly pointed
out by the OCA, the withdrawal of an administrative complaint does not
divest us of our disciplinary authority over court personnel. Thus, in
Lapeña v. Pamarang,[17]
we held:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The withdrawal of a
complaint for lack of interest of a complainant does not necessarily
warrant
the dismissal of an administrative complaint. The Court cannot be bound
by the unilateral decision of a complainant to desist from prosecuting
a case involving the discipline of parties subject to its
administrative
supervision.
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Also, in the very
recent
case of Nones v. Ormita,[18]
we further held that:
x x x, the faith and
confidence of the people in their government and its agencies and
instrumentalities
need to be maintained. The people should not be made to depend upon the
whims and caprices of complainants who, in a real sense, are only
witnesses.
To rule otherwise would subvert the fair and prompt administration of
justice,
as well as undermine the discipline of court personnel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The image of the judiciary
is mirrored in the kind of conduct, official or otherwise, which the
personnel
within its employ display, from the judge to the lowliest clerk. So
much
so that any fighting or misunderstanding among them becomes a
disgraceful
sight reflecting adversely on the good image of the judiciary.
Professionalism,
respect for the rights of others, good manners and right conduct are
expected
of all judicial officers and employees.[19]
Thus, all employees are required to preserve the judiciary’s good name
and standing as a true temple of justice.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, complainant Timoteo M. Casanova, Jr. is hereby
ADMONISHED
for unduly trifling with the time of the Court in this administrative
case.
On the other hand, respondent Felizardo P. Cajayon of the Regional
Trial
Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, Branch 45 is hereby REPRIMANDED
for his failure to submit the required Docket Inventory on time. Both
the
complainant and respondent are hereby STERNLY WARNED that a repetition
of the same or similar act(s) in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-3.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id., p. 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Id., at 7-8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., at 15.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id., at 36.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
353 Phil. 665 (1998).
[7]
Rollo, p. 46.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id., pp. 45-47.
[9]
Id., at 117.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
[11]
Id., at 112-A-112-B.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
TSN, August 21, 2001, pp. 7-8.
[13]
Id., pp. 8-9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id., at 10-11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Report on the Spot Judicial Audit Conducted in Metropolitan Trial
Court,
Branch 36, Quezon City, A.M. No. 98-3-34-MeTC, 25 August 1999, 313 SCRA
25, 37.
[16]
Report on the Judicial Audit conducted in RTC-Brs. 61 & 63, Quezon;
MTC-Calauag, Quezon & Tagkawayan, Quezon, A.M. No. 98-8-262-RTC, 21
March 2000, 328 SCRA 543, 582, citing CA v. Escalante, A.M. No.
P-96-1219,
15 August 1997, 277 SCRA 331.
[17]
382 Phil. 325, 330 (2000); Estreller v. Manatad, Jr., 335 Phil. 1077
(1997).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
A.M. No. P-01-1532, 9 October 2002, citing Cabatingan, Sr. v. Arcueno,
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1323, 22 August 2002; Jacob v. Tambo, A.M. No.
P-00-1411,
16 November 2001; Malinao v. Mijares, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1475, 12 December
2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
In Re: Incident report of the Security Division, Supreme Court, on the
alleged unlady-like manner of Ms. Edna S. Cesar, RTC, Branch 171,
Valenzuela
City, A.M. No. 00-11-526-RTC, 16 September 2002.
[20]
Id., citing Pizarro v. Villegas, A.M. No. P-97-1243, 20 November 2000,
345 SCRA 42.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |