A.M. No. P-04-1912 - Pamintuan vs. Ente-Alcantara

Edgardo D. Pamintuan, General Manager of the National Housing Authority (NHA), filed a letter-complaint dated October 3, 2003.
The complaint charged Branch Clerk of Court Edilaida D. Ente-Alcantara and Clerk III Amelia S. Loja of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 31, Quezon City, with misfeasance and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service under Section 36(b) of P.D. 807.
The administrative action arose from delays in transmitting records pertaining to Civil Case No. 16995, an ejectment case filed by the NHA in January 1997 before Branch 31.

Civil Case No. 16995 (ejectment case against Eduardo S. Yap) was initiated in January 1997 and a decision favoring the NHA was rendered on May 16, 2001.
Eduardo S. Yap filed a Notice of Appeal from the decision.
The NHA noted non-compliance when the required letter of transmittal of records to the appellate court, mandated under Rule 40, Section 6 of the Rules of Court, was not received from the Branch Clerk of Court.
On February 18, 2003, the NHA’s Legal Department sent a letter to both clerks concerned about the non-transmittal of the case records.
Subsequent follow-ups resulted in explanations that the records were under inventory, the records-folder was being located among bundled files in the lower ground of the court building, and that assistance from the NHA staff might be needed if there was urgency.

Claimed no prior knowledge of the ejectment case since she assumed office as Clerk of Court only on August 8, 2003.
Asserted that the delay attributed to the period when former Clerk Larry De Guzman was in charge.
Noted that she only became aware of the case in September 2003 upon inquiry by another clerk from Branch 40.

Stated she assumed the duties as Clerk III on June 10, 2002, and was responsible for docketing and filing pleadings, motions, and other court processes.
Explained that due to the absence of a formal case turnover from her predecessors, she extended her working hours to assist in the inventory of cases, including those stored in the basement.
Indicated that when the NHA sent its inquiry on February 18, 2003, she responded verbally that she was trying to locate the records, denying the allegation that she requested NHA personnel to assist.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued a report dated September 30, 2004, after a careful review of the records.
For Ente-Alcantara, it was found that she bore no fault regarding the delay since she had not yet assumed her responsibilities at the time the records were queried.
For Loja, the report noted her failure to provide an adequate written response to the formal letter inquiry from the NHA, relying solely on a verbal response.
The inadequacy of her response was measured against Section 5(a) of R.A. No. 6713 (the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) and Administrative Circular No. 8-99, which demand prompt and appropriate written replies within fifteen (15) working days.

The OCA recommended imposing a fine of P2,000.00 for failure to comply with Section 5(a) of R.A. No. 6713.

Considering that this was her first offense and given the relatively light nature of the violation, the penalty was modified to a reprimand accompanied by a stern warning against future repetition.

Whether the respondents, specifically Clerk III Amelia S. Loja, failed to promptly and properly respond to the NHA’s formal inquiry regarding the transmission of records in accordance with Section 5(a) of R.A. No. 6713.
Whether the delay in transmitting the case records, as evidenced by the lack of a proper written reply, constitutes misfeasance and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Whether it is appropriate to hold Clerk Ente-Alcantara liable for the delay even though she assumed office after the alleged misfeasance took place.
The appropriate administrative sanction for a public official or employee who, by mere verbal acknowledgement rather than a written response, fails to satisfy the strict requirements of the Code of Conduct.