SECOND DIVISION
ATTY. RAUL A.
MUYCO,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-03-1761
April 2, 2004
-versus-
EVA B. SARATAN,
BRANCH CLERK OF COURT,
BRANCH 32, RTC,
ILOILO CITY,
Respondent.
R E S O L U
T I O N
QUISUMBING,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
In his verified Complaint[1]
dated July 14, 2003, complainant Atty. Raul A. Muyco charges respondent
Eva B. Saratan, Clerk of Court, Branch 32 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC)
of Iloilo City, with violation of Section 5 (a) of Republic Act No.
6713,[2]
neglect of duty, refusal to perform official duty, and conduct
unbecoming
a court personnel.
Complainant is the counsel
for the plaintiff-appellee in an unlawful detainer case entitled “F
&
C Lending Investor/Marcelino Florete, Jr. v. Rexie Protasio” originally
docketed as Civil Case No. 2000(459) before Branch 3 of the MTCC of
Iloilo
City. He alleges that he secured a favorable judgment for his
client,
and immediately filed a motion for execution. Unfortunately, the
court a quo did not resolve the motion because the defendant had
appealed
the judgment to the RTC of Iloilo City and the records had been
transmitted
to Branch 32, where the appeal had been raffled.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Even with the appeal
having been taken, however, complainant discovered that no supersedeas
bond had been posted and no monthly rentals had been deposited.
He
again sought to execute the judgment in a motion for execution pending
appeal, but the motion was likewise denied on May 30, 2003. The
presiding
judge justified his denial on considerations of equity and the
existence
of a prejudicial question.cralaw:red
Complainant considered
the denial a palpable violation and disregard of Section 19,[3]
Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, and thought of seeking a writ of
mandamus
from the Court of Appeals.[4]
To prepare his petition, complainant requested on June 16, 2003, a
certification
from respondent that based on the records (1) the defendant-appellant
has
not posted a supersedeas bond to stay the execution and (2) that the
defendant-appellant
has likewise not made the monthly deposit of rents awarded in the
decision
of the court of origin.[5]
Respondent ignored the request so he reiterated it in a letter[6]
dated July 4, 2003. He reminded respondent of her duties under
Rep.
Act No. 6713 and advised her that her continued refusal to issue the
requested
certification would constrain him to institute administrative charges
against
her. Undaunted, respondent continued to ignore the request.
Hence,
on July 15, 2003, complainant filed the instant complaint.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In her comment[7]
dated August 25, 2003, respondent explains that while she had the
ministerial
duty to issue the certification she hesitated to issue it
immediately.
According to her, the parties to the appeal were still arguing on the
appellant’s
failure to post the supersedeas bond and to make the monthly
deposits.
Since the certification requested of her also concern facts related to
these litigated matters, she became confused whether she was indeed
required
to issue the certification. She adds that she was also fearful
that
her issuance of the certification might expose her to liability.cralaw:red
In perhaps an attempt
to cite a possible mitigating, if not absolving, circumstance,
respondent
further cites that complainant sought a reconsideration of the order
denying
the motion for execution pending appeal. Subsequently, however,
complainant
moved for the inhibition of the presiding judge before the latter could
resolve the motion for reconsideration.cralaw:red
On December 10, 2003,
the Court resolved to have the case re-docketed as a regular
administrative
matter.cralaw:red
The facts of this case
make out a clear case of simple neglect of duty.cralaw:red
Section 5 (a) and (d)
of Rep. Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for
Public
Officials and Employees provides:
Sec.
5.
Duties of Public Officials and Employees. In the performance of their
duties,
all public officials and employees are under obligation to:
(a)
Act promptly on letters and requests. All public officials and
employees
shall, within fifteen (15) working days from receipt thereof, respond
to
letters, telegrams or other means of communications sent by the public.
The reply must contain the action taken on the request.cralaw:red
(d)
Act immediately on the public's personal transactions. All public
officials
and employees must attend to anyone who wants to avail himself of the
services
of their offices and must, at all times, act promptly and expeditiously.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In Administrative Circular
No. 08-99 dated July 2, 1999, we emphasized the importance of complying
with these provisions. The Circular reads:
TO: ALL
OFFICIALS AND PERSONNEL OF THE JUDICIARY
RE: PROMPT
ACTION ON LETTERS AND REQUESTS AND PUBLIC’S PERSONAL
TRANSACTION
It has been observed
by, and brought to the attention of, the Chief Justice that in some
instances
complaints, letters or requests from the public addressed to the
officials
of the Judiciary are belatedly answered or not answered at all.cralaw:red
All concerned are reminded
of paragraphs (a) and (d) of Section 5 of R.A. No. 6713, otherwise
known
as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees,
which explicitly mandate as follows:
The Presiding Justices
of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, the Court Administrator,
the Deputy Court Administrators, the Assistant Court Administrators,
the
Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, the Presiding Judge of the Court
of
Tax Appeals, and all Executive Judges and clerks of court of all other
courts shall see to it that this Circular is immediately disseminated
and
strictly observed.cralaw:red
This Circular shall
take effect immediately.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
City of Manila, 02 July
1999.cralaw:red
(Sgd.) HILARIO G. DAVIDE,
JR.
Chief Justice
Thus, as a public employee,
it is respondent’s duty to act on the letters and requests of the
public
within 15 working days from the time she receives them and to attend
promptly
and expeditiously to anyone who wants to avail of the services of her
office.
In this case, however, respondent issued the requested certifications
only
on July 23, 2003,[8]
more than a month the time complainant requested it.cralaw:red
Respondent is reminded
of her sacred duty as an officer of the court to attend to the public’s
query. As we held in Reyes-Domingo v. Morales:[9]
A Clerk of Court is
an essential and a ranking officer of our judicial system who performs
delicate administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper
administration
of justice. A Clerk of Court’s office is the nucleus of activities both
adjudicative and administrative, performing, among others, the
functions
of keeping the records and seal, issuing processes, entering judgments
and orders and giving, upon request, certified copies from the records.cralaw:red
Even if she were truly
at a loss on what action to take on complainant’s request, as she
claims,
respondent should have communicated to complainant her alleged dilemma
instead of sitting on the letter, thus giving the impression that she
ignored
the same. Repeatedly, we have emphasized the heavy burden and
responsibility
which the court officials and employees are mandated to observe, in
view
of their exalted positions as keepers of the public faith.[10]
They are constantly reminded that any impression of impropriety,
misdeed
or negligence in the performance of official functions must be avoided.[11]
We will never countenance any conduct, act or omission on the part of
all
those involved in the administration of justice that would violate the
norm of public accountability and diminish the faith of the people in
the
judiciary.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Under Section 52(C)(15),
Rule IV of CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1999 or the
Revised
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,
respondent’s
infraction is classified as a light offense punishable as follows:
Section 15. Classification
of Offenses.—Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are
classified
into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or
depravity
and the effect on the government service.cralaw:red
C. The following are
Light Offenses with corresponding penalties:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
15. Failure to
attend to anyone who wants to avail himself of the services of the
office,
or act promptly and expeditiously on public transaction —
1st Offense — Reprimand
2nd Offense — Suspension
1–30 days
3rd Offense — Dismissal
Considering that this
is respondent’s first offense, the penalty of reprimand is warranted.[13]
WHEREFORE, respondent
EVA B. SARATAN, Branch Clerk of Court in Branch 32 of the Regional
Trial
Court of Iloilo City, is REPRIMANDED and STERNLY WARNED that commission
of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Austria-Martinez, Callejo,
Sr., and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Puno, J., (Chairman),
on official leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
SEC. 19. Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay same.—chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
If judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue
immediately
upon motion, unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to
stay
execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by the
Municipal
Trial Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the
rents,
damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed
from,
and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the
appellate
court the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if
any,
as determined by the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court. In
the
absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the Regional Trial Court
the
reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises for the
preceding
month or period at the rate determined by the judgment of the lower
court
on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month or period.
The
supersedeas bond shall be transmitted by the Municipal Trial Court,
with
the other papers, to the clerk of the Regional Trial Court to which the
action is appealed.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
All amounts so paid to the appellate court shall be deposited with said
court or authorized government depositary bank, and shall be held there
until the final disposition of the appeal, unless the court, by
agreement
of the interested parties, or in the absence of reasonable grounds of
opposition
to a motion to withdraw, or for justifiable reasons, shall decree
otherwise.
Should the defendant fail to make the payments above prescribed from
time
to time during the pendency of the appeal, the appellate court, upon
motion
of the plaintiff, and upon proof of such failure, shall order the
execution
of the judgment appealed from with respect to the restoration of
possession,
but such execution shall not be a bar to the appeal taking its course
until
the final disposition thereof on the merits.
[4]
Rollo, pp. 2-3, 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 5.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id. at 6-7chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
.
[7]
Id. at 12.
[8]
Rollo, p. 12.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
A.M. No. P-99-1285, 4 October 2000, 342 SCRA 6, 15.
[10]
Reyes-Macabeo v. Valle, A.M. No. P-02-1650, 3 April 2003, p. 4.
[11]
Chupungco v. Cabusao, A.M. No. P-03-1758, 10 December 2003, p. 6.
[12]
Madrid v. Quebral, A.M. No. P-03-1744, 7 October 2003, p. 12.
[13]
See Angeles v. Eduarte, A.M. No. P-03-1710, 28 August 2003, p. 9. |