Facts:

This case involves an administrative complaint filed by Hilario Tudtud and Alberto Tudtud against Atty. Rey D. Caayon, who served as the Clerk of Court VI at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bogo, Cebu. The complaint was lodged on March 28, 2005, and stemmed from the Tudtuds' involvement as intervenors in Civil Case No. BOGO-00099, which was pending before RTC Branch 61. The case was originally filed by spouses Antonio and Soledad Divinagracia against Leonidisa N. Cometa and others, with the Tudtuds as intervenors. The Tudtuds lost the case but filed a notice of appeal on October 6, 1998. However, they later discovered that the records of the case had not been transmitted to the appellate court due to the inaction of Atty. Caayon, which violated Section 10, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. This rule mandates that the Clerk of Court must transmit records to the appellate court within 30 days after the perfection of the appeal. The Tudtuds alleged that Atty. Caayon's fai...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Complainants Hilario Tudtud and Alberto Tudtud were intervenors in Civil Case No. BOGO-00099, pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Bogo, Cebu. The case was entitled Spouses Antonio and Soledad Divinagracia, et al., plaintiffs versus Leonidisa N. Cometa, et al., defendants; Alberto Tudtud and Hilario Tudtud, Intervenors.
• The Tudtuds lost the case before the RTC but filed a timely notice of appeal on October 6, 1998.

Allegations Against Respondent

• Complainants discovered that the records of the case were not transmitted to the appellate court due to the inaction of Atty. Rey D. Caayon, the Branch Clerk of Court.
• This inaction violated Section 10, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which requires the Clerk of Court to transmit records to the appellate court within 30 days after perfection of the appeal.
• Complainants alleged that the delay was intentional and done in bad faith, giving undue advantage to the opposing party, the spouses Divinagracia, who continued to use and benefit from the seven parcels of land involved in the case.

Respondent’s Defense

• Atty. Caayon admitted the delay but claimed it was not intentional. He explained that the records were mistakenly placed in a cabinet for disposed and terminated cases and were only discovered during an inventory in January 2000.
• He cited his heavy workload, including performing duties as Deputy Sheriff IV, cashier, and other administrative tasks due to a lack of personnel.
• He denied any bad faith, malice, or corruption and stated that he transmitted the records to the Court of Appeals on March 31, 2000, before receiving the order to file his comment.

Court Administrator’s Findings

• The Court Administrator found that the delay in transmitting the records was one year and five months after the perfection of the appeal.
• The claim of heavy workload was rejected as a valid justification, and the respondent’s actions were deemed a failure to perform his duties with diligence, efficiency, and professionalism.
• The Court Administrator recommended a fine of P5,000 for the delay, with a warning against repetition.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Duty of Clerks of Court: Clerks of Court are expected to perform their duties with diligence, efficiency, and professionalism. Their role is vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice, including the safekeeping and timely transmission of court records.
2. No Valid Justification for Delay: The respondent’s claim of heavy workload was insufficient to excuse the delay. The Court emphasized that heavy caseloads do not justify negligence in performing administrative duties.
3. Simple Neglect of Duty: The respondent’s failure to transmit the records within the required period constituted simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense under the Civil Service Rules.
4. Mitigating Circumstance: Since this was the respondent’s first offense, the Court imposed a fine instead of suspension, consistent with precedents where first-time offenders were given lighter penalties.