Title
Tecson vs. Asuncion-Roxas
Case
A.M. No. P-16-3515
Decision Date
Aug 10, 2016
A clerk of court was fined for gross neglect after failing to transmit criminal case records to the appellate court, delaying the complainant's appeal and job opportunities.
court clerk
gross neglect of duty
transmit records
A

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-16-3515)

Factual Background

On January 31, 2008, an information was filed with the RTC of Trece Martires City against Tecson for violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262 upon the complaint filed by his wife. The case was docketed as Criminal Case No. TMCR-038-08 and raffled to Branch 23, where the trial proceedings were handled by the court that later issued the hold-departure measures.

At the time the criminal case was instituted, Tecson was employed as a draftsman in Doha, Qatar, under a six-year contract effective until September 3, 2011. In view of the prosecution, the Presiding Judge of Branch 23 issued a Hold-Departure Order against Tecson. His name was included in the Hold Departure List of the Bureau of Immigration and in the Look-Out List in the Passport Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Tecson filed a motion for reconsideration of the hold-departure order and sought permission to leave the country temporarily during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, subject to terms or conditions that the trial court might impose, because he needed to report back to his work in Qatar. The Presiding Judge denied the motion.

On October 10, 2013, the RTC of Trece Martires City, Branch 23, rendered a decision finding Tecson guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The decision was received by Tecson on November 4, 2013. On even date, he filed a Notice of Appeal with the RTC, Branch 23.

Tecson subsequently made inquiries regarding the status of his appeal. On October 22, 2014, he wrote the Court of Appeals to inquire about the appeal’s status. In a letter dated November 10, 2014, the Chief of the Criminal Cases Section of the Court of Appeals, Medella A. Carrera, informed him that the records of Criminal Case No. TMCR-038-08 had not yet been received by the Court of Appeals. Tecson was advised to ask the RTC for a certification regarding the status of his appeal.

In a letter dated January 23, 2015, Tecson requested the RTC Clerk of Court (respondent) to transmit the records of Criminal Case No. TMCR-038-08 to the Court of Appeals within five days. Despite this request, the respondent still failed to transmit the records. Tecson averred that because he could not file with the Court of Appeals any motion to lift the hold-departure order, he could not accept employment offered to him in Lagos, Nigeria.

On March 18, 2015, Tecson filed an affidavit-complaint with the OCA charging the respondent with gross neglect of duty for the delay in transmittal.

OCA Proceedings and Respondent’s Explanation

The OCA issued an Indorsement dated March 26, 2015, requiring the respondent to submit a comment within ten days. The respondent submitted her comment on May 18, 2015.

The respondent did not dispute, in substance, the chronology of the appellate record’s non-transmittal within the required period. Instead, she argued that upon Tecson’s filing of his notice of appeal and payment of the required appeal fees, she immediately handed over the notice of appeal to the clerk assigned to criminal cases. She attributed the delay in transmittal to her workload because she served as a Clerk of Court in a single sala court, and her workload allegedly doubled due to the designation of an assisting judge in Branch 23.

She further explained that due to the volume of work, she instructed the clerk assigned to criminal cases to write the corresponding pages in the records and to prepare a list of exhibits to facilitate the preparation of the records for transmission. She claimed that the transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) were misplaced by the clerk assigned to criminal cases. She stated that she gave ample time for the clerk to locate the TSNs but that the clerk failed to do so. She insinuated that she forwarded the records to the Court of Appeals without the TSNs.

The respondent also asserted that she had no intention to cause injury to Tecson or to taint the administration of justice. She implied that the incident could have been avoided if the RTC had a manageable case load.

Findings and Recommendation of the OCA

On April 4, 2016, the Court Administrator issued a report recommending that the respondent be found guilty of gross neglect of duty and be fined P5,000.00, with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar infraction would be dealt with more severely.

The OCA emphasized that the duty of the clerk of court of the trial court to transmit to the Court of Appeals the complete record of the case within five days from the filing of the notice of appeal is mandatory under Section 8, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court. It found the respondent’s defenses, including heavy workload and missing TSNs, unavailing and considered them flimsy excuses that could not exculpate her from administrative sanction.

The Issue

The principal issue before the Court was whether the respondent was guilty of gross neglect of duty in failing to transmit to the Court of Appeals the records of Criminal Case No. TMCR-038-08 within the period required by the Rules of Court.

Ruling of the Court

The Court adopted the OCA’s findings and recommendations. It quoted Section 8, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, which provides that within five (5) days from the filing of the notice of appeal, the clerk of court where the notice is filed must transmit to the clerk of court of the appellate court the complete record of the case, together with said notice. The rule also requires transmission of the original and three copies of the TSNs with the records and provides that the other copy of the TSNs shall remain in the lower court.

The Court noted that the respondent was able to transmit the complete records of Criminal Case No. TMCR-038-08 to the Court of Appeals only on February 23, 2015, which was more than a year after Tecson filed his notice of appeal on November 4, 2013. The Court held that the respondent’s failure to transmit the records for one year and three months was unreasonably long and constituted gross neglect of duty. The Court reasoned that the delay prolonged Tecson’s appeal of his conviction, thereby directly implicating his right to appeal.

The Court also gave little weight to the respondent’s justification of heavy workload. It acknowledged that trial courts are indeed heavily laden with caseloads, but it ruled that this cannot serve as a convenient excuse to evade administrative liability. The Court stressed that if workload could excuse negligence, every government employee would be able to avoid punishment for dereliction of duty, to the detriment of public service. It reiterated that court personnel must perform assigned tasks promptly and with care and diligence due to the important role they play in the administration of justice.

The Court further explained that any delay in the administration of justice, even if brief, deprives litigants of their right to a speedy disposition. It also undermines public confidence in the judiciary.

In support of the penalty scheme for delayed transmittal, the Court cited prior administrative cases involving clerks of court and judges. It referred to Judge Fuentes v. Atty. Fabro (G.R. No. appearing in the text as 662 Phil. 618 (2011)), where the clerk was found guilty of gross neglect for failing to transmit records of several civil cases within the time required and transmitted them only after two years, leading to a P20,000.00 fine. It also referenced Bellena v. Judge Perello (490 Phil. 534 (2005)), where the respondent judge failed to transmit records for almost nine months and was fined P20,000.00. It further cited Goforth v. Huelar, Jr. (581 Phil. 309 (2008)), where the respondent was found guilty of gross neglect for failing to transmit records within the required period and the delay exceeded three years, leading to a P15,000.00 fine.

The Court distinguished the present case as one involving a criminal case record, which prolonged the accused’s appeal. It therefore increased the OCA’s recommended penalty from P5,000.00 to P15,000.00.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court anchored its ruling on Section 8, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, treating the five-day transmittal of the complete record upon appeal as a strict, mandatory duty. It found that the respondent’s actual transmittal occurred only on February 23, 2015, despite Tecson’s filing of the notice of appeal on November 4, 2013, and thus fell far beyond the period contemplated by the rule.

The Court held that the respondent’s workload explanation did not negate accountability. It also treated the alleged misplacement of TSNs a

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms