Facts:

The case revolves around the matter of Atty. Jesus N. Bandong, who served as Clerk of Court VI at the Regional Trial Court Branch 49 in Cataingan, Masbate. Respondent Bello R. Ching was a Court Interpreter under Atty. Bandong's supervision. The sequence of events commenced in August 1996, when the Supreme Court noted a long-standing neglect of duty by Ching that persisted for over ten years. This neglect prompted an inquiry into why Atty. Bandong had not addressed Ching's failings in her role. As clerks of court play crucial administrative roles, including oversight of court records and ensuring subordinate efficiency, Bandong was subsequently directed to explain his lack of disciplinary action against Ching. In a compliance filed by Bandong on September 27, 1996, he claimed to have exercised diligence in supervising his staff, characterizing his reminders and the distribution of manuals as sufficient measures t

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Complainant: Atty. Jesus N. Bandong, Clerk of Court VI, RTC Branch 49, Cataingan, Masbate.
• Respondent: Bello R. Ching, a court interpreter employed in the same branch.
• Nature of the Case: Case centers on alleged neglect of duty in the performance of compulsory administrative functions related to the supervision of court records and minute preparations.

Supervision and Administrative Control

• Atty. Jesus N. Bandong, in his role as Clerk of Court, was charged with the control and supervision over all court records as per the Manual for Clerks of Court (sections 26 and 32).
• His responsibilities included ensuring that his subordinates, including the respondent, performed their functions diligently and in accordance with established guidelines and procedures.
• He claimed to have instituted several supervisory measures:
• Issuance of repeated reminders to employees regarding their duties and responsibilities.
• Holding conferences called by the Executive Judge, Hon. Henry B. Basilla.
• Providing printed copies of the BC CSO Form No. 1 (Position Description Form) to be signed by both the employee and the immediate supervisor, to serve as a constant reminder of job responsibilities.
• Despite these measures, it was found that the respondent had failed, over a period exceeding ten years, to properly execute her duty of preparing the Minutes for the cases handled by his branch.

Discovery of the Neglect and Subsequent Proceedings

• The neglect in performing duties by the respondent was noted only after a prolonged period, raising questions about the oversight and periodic assessment mechanisms of the office.
• The Court, upon reviewing the case, extended the inquiry to the complainant himself, emphasizing that as the administrative officer in control, he was responsible for monitoring the performance of his personnel.
• As a result, the complainant was required to "show cause" as to why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for his failure to provide adequate supervision.

Complainant’s Defense and Explanation

• In his two-page compliance submitted on 27 September 1996, Atty. Bandong provided a two-paragraph explanation defending his supervisory practices.
• His explanation detailed:
• His tenure and continuous exercise of supervision since his appointment in 1976 and subsequent promotion in 1983.
• His personal belief that the regular reminders and posted guidelines had ensured his personnel's faithful performance.
• His inability to monitor every detail of every subordinate's actions due to the pressures and volume of his workload.
• Despite these efforts, the explanation was found to be unsatisfactory because it inadvertently admitted that his supervisory measures were insufficient, particularly with respect to the respondent’s long-standing nonfeasance in preparing the Minutes.

Issue:

Whether the complainant, Atty. Jesus N. Bandong, as the Clerk of Court, fulfilled his supervisory duties and responsibilities over his subordinate.

• Did his methods of issuing reminders, holding conferences, and displaying guidelines satisfy the court’s requirements for proper oversight?
• Was his supervision effective in preventing and detecting the respondent’s neglect of duty?

Whether the failure of the respondent, Bello R. Ching, to prepare the required Minutes for over ten years constitutes an isolated incident or a broader failure in administrative supervision attributable to her immediate superior.

• Does the prolonged neglect by the respondent implicate the administrative officer in charge for not instituting more rigorous monitoring and assessment measures?

• Whether the inherent neglect in supervisory responsibilities, as admitted indirectly by the complainant’s explanation, is sufficient to warrant disciplinary action against him.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)