A.M. No. P-03-1761 - Muyco vs. Saratan

Complainant Atty. Raul A. Muyco, serving as counsel for the plaintiff-appellee in an unlawful detainer case (F & C Lending Investor/Marcelino Florete, Jr. v. Rexie Protasio), secured a favorable judgment for his client.
A motion for execution was immediately filed by the complainant; however, the motion was not resolved by the court a quo because the defendant had appealed the judgment, and the case records were transmitted to Branch 32 of the RTC of Iloilo City where the appeal was raffled.

Complainant discovered that the defendant-appellant had not posted a supersedeas bond nor deposited the monthly rentals as required by the court’s order.
On June 16, 2003, the complainant requested a certification from respondent Eva B. Saratan confirming that (a) no supersedeas bond had been posted and (b) no monthly deposits had been made.
This request was reiterated by the complainant through a subsequent letter dated July 4, 2003, wherein he reminded respondent of her statutory obligations under Republic Act No. 6713.

Respondent, serving as Branch Clerk of Court at Branch 32 of the RTC in Iloilo City, delayed issuing the requested certification.
In her comment dated August 25, 2003, respondent explained that although she had a ministerial duty to issue the certification, she hesitated because the issues on appeal—specifically regarding the posting of the supersedeas bond and the deposit of monthly rentals—were still being contested by the parties involved.
Respondent also expressed concern that issuing the certification might expose her to potential liability.
As an ancillary point, respondent mentioned that complainant had sought a reconsideration of the denial of the motion for execution pending appeal, and was also involved in a separate motion for the inhibition of the presiding judge, adding complexity to the situation.

On December 10, 2003, the Court resolved to have the administrative case re-docketed as a regular administrative matter, further underscoring the gravity of the issues involved regarding timely and accurate processing of public requests.

Republic Act No. 6713, Section 5 (a) and (d): Mandates that public officials and employees respond promptly—a requirement to act within fifteen (15) working days on letters, requests, and public transactions.
Administrative Circular No. 08-99 (dated July 2, 1999): Reinforces the obligation of judicial officials to promptly address letters and requests from the public, emphasizing the critical nature of public service within the judiciary.
Judicial precedents (e.g., Reyes-Domingo v. Morales) have stressed the indispensable role of a Clerk of Court in ensuring the smooth administration of justice and maintaining public trust.

The facts have been determined to constitute a clear case of simple neglect of duty by the respondent.
Under Section 52(C)(15) of Rule IV of the CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19 (Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service), the respondent’s behavior is classified as a light offense, warranting a reprimand as the first disciplinary action.
The court emphasized that any recurrence of a similar neglect could result in more severe sanctions.

Whether Respondent Eva B. Saratan, as a public official, failed to discharge her statutory duty by not issuing the certification within the mandated period of fifteen (15) working days.
Whether her inaction and ensuing delay constituted neglect of duty under Section 5 (a) and (d) of Republic Act No. 6713.
Whether the respondent’s justification—that the certification involved disputed facts in ongoing litigation—adequately excuses her failure to promptly perform her official function.
Whether the procedural complexities, including the appellant’s pending appeal and related litigated issues, mitigate the requirement for immediate administrative action on her part.
Whether the penalty imposed (reprimand) appropriately reflects the seriousness of the neglect of duty, considering it was her first offense.