A.M. No. P-04-1797 - Becina vs. Vivero

Elsa C. Becina, one of the plaintiffs in Civil Cases Nos. 61, 62, 63, and 64, obtained a favorable judgment which was subsequently upheld by the Court.
After entry of judgment in the court of origin, the plaintiffs filed a motion for the execution of the judgment on November 13, 2002.
The execution motion was not resolved due to the untimely demise of Presiding Judge Celestino Dicon, prompting the case to be calendared for hearing.

On May 7, 2003, Judge Ramon Daomilas, Jr. issued an order giving counsel for both the defendant and the plaintiff fifteen (15) days to file respective opposition or comments regarding the motion for issuance of a writ of execution.
The respondent, Jose A. Vivero (Clerk of Court), failed to release the said order and did not inform the parties of its existence, resulting in a delay in the execution of the judgment.
The complainant discovered the non-release approximately two months later, on July 2, 2003, when she appeared in court to follow up on the said order.

Elsa C. Becina charged the respondent with gross negligence in the performance of his official functions and dereliction of duty, arguing that the delay in the release of the order prejudiced the parties and the administration of justice.
The complaint asserted that due to the delay, despite a favorable judgment, the ensuing procedural lapses negatively impacted the efficiency and credibility of the court’s operations.

Jose A. Vivero admitted that an order was indeed issued on May 7, 2003, but justified the delay in its release by citing several instances of absence from duty:

On May 7, 2003, he was on leave of absence due to severe pain from waist and hip injuries sustained in a vehicular accident on May 2, 2003. (Application for leave attached as Annex aAa)
Upon his return, he was not informed by his colleagues regarding the status of Elsa Becina’s case.
He further claimed additional leaves for medical check-ups (June 10-12, 2003), for attending to a funeral (June 18-20, 2003), and another medical check-up (July 2, 2003) when the complainant appeared in court.

A Report dated November 17, 2003, by the Court Administrator, opined that the respondent should be admonished for his administrative lapse, warning him that any future similar conduct would be dealt with more severely.
The report and findings detailed that while there was a delay in the release of the order, it was not the result of a willful or intentional design to prejudice any party but rather a consequence of the respondent’s series of leaves.

The respondent did not deny his culpability for the delay and indeed pleaded for forgiveness, admitting that he should have ensured the order was disclosed to the relevant parties.
The Court, however, noted that the amount of delay and the circumstances under which it occurred were mitigated by his repeated absences due to injury, yet still constituted a neglect of duty.

Whether the delay in releasing the court’s order, which caused a delay in the execution of the judgment, constitutes gross negligence in the performance of the respondent’s official functions.
Whether the respondent’s series of leaves of absence, which were related to valid health and personal matters, can be considered exculpatory or whether they amount to simple neglect of duty.
Whether the administrative lapse on the part of the clerk resulted in any prejudicial effects on the parties involved and on the administration of justice.
The appropriateness of imposing a penalty of admonition versus a harsher sanction in light of the respondent’s admissions and the circumstances presented.