Title
Muyco vs. Saratan
Case
A.M. No. P-03-1761
Decision Date
Apr 2, 2004
Atty. Muyco sought certification from RTC Clerk Saratan for a mandamus petition; her failure to act promptly despite repeated requests led to a Supreme Court reprimand for neglect of duty.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-5187)

Allegations Against the Respondent

In the verified complaint submitted on July 14, 2003, Atty. Raul A. Muyco asserts that Eva B. Saratan, as the Clerk of Court for Branch 32 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iloilo City, has committed several infractions including the violation of Section 5 (a) of Republic Act No. 6713 concerning neglect of duty, refusal to perform an official duty, and conduct unbecoming a court personnel. The complaint arose from the handling of an unlawful detainer case, where the complainant experienced significant delays due to the respondent's inaction.

Background of the Case

Atty. Muyco, representing the plaintiff in an appeal for an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 2000(459)), secured a favorable judgment from the lower court. However, upon filing a motion for execution—subsequent to the defendant's appeal—the motion was not resolved promptly due to the transmission of records to Branch 32 where the appeal was raffled. Atty. Muyco noted the absence of a required supersedeas bond and monthly rental payments, necessitating a follow-up request for certification from the respondent regarding the status of these matters.

Respondent's Inaction

Despite multiple requests—including a formal request on June 16, 2003, followed by a reiteration on July 4, 2003—respondent Saratan failed to issue the requested certification or to act on the complainant’s letters within the statutory 15 working days. This inaction compelled Atty. Muyco to file the complaint argued as a palpable violation of his client's rights and the judicial process.

Respondent's Defense

In her comment submitted on August 25, 2003, the respondent admitted her hesitation to issue the certification, citing confusion over the facts related to the appeal and apprehension regarding her potential liability. She suggested this hesitation stemmed from the ongoing discourse on the appeal concerning the posting of the supersedeas bond and the monthly deposits. Respondent also noted the procedural complexities introduced by Atty. Muyco's subsequent motion for the inhibition of the presiding judge, defining a context of uncertainty.

Findings and Legal Standards

The justices concluded that the inaction of the respondent constituted simple neglect of duty as described in Section 5 (a) and (d) of Republic Act No. 6713. The law explicitly mandates public officials to act promptly on communications and attend to public transactions. The Court emphasized the importance of these duties, particularly within the judiciary, clarifying that noncompliance undermines public trust and accountability in the jud

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.