Case Digest (A.M. No. P-02-1567)
Facts:
Hilario Tudtud and Alberto Tudtud, Complainants, vs. Atty. Rey D. Caayon, Clerk of Court VI, RTC of Bogo, Cebu, Respondent, A.M. No. P-02-1567, March 28, 2005, Supreme Court First Division, Azcuna, J., writing for the Court.Complainants Hilario Tudtud and Alberto Tudtud were intervenors in Civil Case No. BOGO-00099 (Spouses Antonio and Soledad Divinagracia, et al. v. Leonidisa N. Cometa, et al.; Alberto Tudtud and Hilario Tudtud, Intervenors) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Bogo, Cebu. After they lost at trial they filed timely notices of appeal on October 6, 1998, thereby perfecting their appeals.
The Tudtuds discovered that the branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Rey D. Caayon, had not transmitted the records to the Court of Appeals, allegedly in violation of Section 10, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court which requires transmittal within 30 days after perfection. The Tudtuds alleged intentional delay, gross and evident bad faith, corruption, and that the delay was meant to advantage the Spouses Divinagracia; they sought severe disciplinary sanctions including dismissal.
On April 25, 2000 the Court Administrator required a comment. Through the Executive Judge, Atty. Caayon explained that the case file was inadvertently placed among disposed cases and was discovered during an inventory in late January 2000; he asserted the delay was unintentional, that he transmitted the records to the Court of Appeals on March 31, 2000, and that personnel shortages had required him to assume ex officio duties (Deputy Sheriff IV and cashier) which contributed to the administrative lapse.
The Court Administrator issued a Report and Recommendation dated January 23, 2002 finding a delay of one year and five months and that respondent failed in his duty; relying on precedents (e.g. Cruz v. Tantay, and other administrative discipline decisions) and rejecting workload as a valid excuse, the Court Administrator ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Can Atty. Rey D. Caayon be held administratively liable for failure to transmit the records of Civil Case No. BOGO-00099 to the Court of Appeals within the required period?
- If liable, what disciplinary sanction ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)