A.M. No. P-02-1567 - Tudtud vs. Caayon

Case Summary (A.M. No. P-02-1567)

Parties, Underlying Litigation, and Material Dates

The administrative complaint stemmed from the related civil case Civil Case No. BOGO-00099, entitled Spouses Antonio and Soledad Divinagracia, et al., plaintiffs versus Leonidisa N. Cometa, et al., defendants, with Hilario Tudtud and Alberto Tudtud appearing as intervenors. The Tudtuds lost the case before the RTC, but they filed a notice of appeal on October 6, 1998.

Afterward, upon inquiry, the Tudtuds learned that, allegedly because of the inaction of respondent Caayon, the records were not transmitted to the appellate court. The complaint emphasized that the records remained with the RTC for more than one (1) year and five (5) months from the perfection of the appeal, without an asserted valid or justifiable reason.

Filing of the Administrative Complaint and Allegations

The Tudtuds filed the administrative complaint against respondent Caayon alleging serious misconduct, graft and corruption, and dishonesty, and asserting that he acted in gross and evident bad faith with an intentional and malicious purpose by not transmitting the records for an extended period. They alleged a deliberate delay intended to confer an undue advantage upon the spouses Divinagracia, so that the latter could enjoy the use and produce of seven parcels of land involved in the civil dispute. They prayed for the dismissal of the Branch Clerk of Court from the service.

Respondent’s Comment and Defenses

On April 25, 2000, the Court Administrator required respondent Caayon to file his comment. Respondent complied through the Executive Judge of Bogo, Cebu around May 22, 2000, and the Executive Judge transmitted the comment to the Court Administrator on June 1, 2000.

Respondent’s comment stated that the case involving the Tudtuds was originally filed before the RTC of Cebu City but was unloaded to Branch 61 at Bogo after the court was constituted. He asserted that after the RTC rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs, both defendants and the intervenors filed notices of appeal on time, and the trial court gave the appeals due course by an order dated October 20, 1998.

Respondent also maintained that the records were mistakenly and without intention placed in a cabinet for disposed and terminated cases, and that the mistake was discovered only in the later part of January 2000 during an inventory taking of cases. He denied that the delay was intentional, or that it involved bad faith, ill motive, or malice. He further claimed that when the Deputy Sheriff IV died, he assumed office in an ex-officio capacity and, due to lack of personnel, performed additional functions such as cashier-related duties, including preparation of cash books and reports, issuance of official receipts, and processing of probation and bail bonds.

Finally, respondent argued that he transmitted the records to the Court of Appeals on March 31, 2000, even before he received the order to file his comment, and he asked that the complaint be considered closed and terminated. He also denied receiving money or other benefits from the spouses Divinagracia.

Report and Recommendation of the Court Administrator

Upon referral, the Court Administrator issued a Report and Recommendation dated January 23, 2002. The recommendation found that there was a delay of one (1) year and five (5) months in the transmittal of the records after perfection of the appeal. It framed the only issue as whether respondent could be held administratively liable for failing to perform his duty under Section 10, Rule 41.

The Report and Recommendation noted that respondent transmitted the records only about two months after discovering the mistake in January 2000 and about one month after the administrative complaint was filed. The Report and Recommendation rejected respondent’s claim of lack of bad faith as “shallow ground,” relying on jurisprudence that expects court officers to discharge duties involving the safekeeping of court records with diligence, efficiency, and professionalism. It cited that branch clerks play a vital role in prompt and proper administration of justice and cannot be permitted to slacken without valid justification.

It also treated respondent’s invocation of workload as not a valid excuse for a Branch Clerk of Court’s infraction. Ultimately, the Court Administrator recommended that respondent be fined Five Thousand (P5,000) Pesos for the delay, with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

The Supreme Court’s Discussion of Court Personnel Conduct

Before ruling on the penalty, the Court reiterated the doctrinal requirement that conduct expected of court personnel—from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk—must always be beyond reproach and free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary. It emphasized that court personnel must preserve the Court’s good name and standing through honesty and integrity in both official and private dealings.

Determination of Liability: Failure to Transmit Records Under Rule 41

The Court held that respondent, as Clerk of Court, failed to perform the duty mandated by Section 10, Rule 41. It treated the obligation to transmit records within the required time as a core function tied to the prompt administration of justice. The Court relied on administrative precedents where clerks of court were held liable for neglect or failure to act with immediacy in relation to pending matters that affected judicial proceedings.

The decision referenced Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Jesus M. Barroso, Jr. (Ret.) and Pedrito A. Cunanan as authority for the principle that a respondent Clerk of Court may be found guilty of simple neglect of duty for failure to act immediately on transferred cases and for related delays. It also cited Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Rolando V. Ramirez and Clerk of Court Sandra M. Ledesma on the loss of court exhibits as another instance where a clerk was held liable for failure to safely keep records with due care. The Court further cited Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (Branch 1), Surigao City as an example of a clerk being found guilty of simple negligence and ordered to pay a fine for lapses concerning records and procedural duties.

Classification of the Offense and Appropriate Penalty

The Court recognized that Civil Service Commission Resolution No. 99-1936, promulgated pursuant to the Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292), classifies simple neglect of duty as a less grave offense and prescribes a penalty of suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for a fir

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. P-02-1567)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Hilario Tudtud and Alberto Tudtud filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Rey D. Caayon in his capacity as Branch Clerk of Court VI of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bogo, Cebu.
The complaint alleged serious misconduct, graft and corruption, and dishonesty, arising from the alleged failure to transmit the records of a decided civil case to the appellate court.
The Court Administrator required Atty. Caayon to file a Comment on April 25, 2000, which he filed through the Executive Judge of Bogo, Cebu and which was transmitted to the Court Administrator on June 1, 2000.
A Report and Recommendation dated January 23, 2002 was submitted after referral to the Court Administrator.
Upon compliance with the Court’s Resolution of March 18, 2002, both parties manifested that they were willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings.
The Court found Atty. Caayon guilty and imposed a fine, concluding the administrative case.

Key Factual Allegations

The complainants were intervenors in Civil Case No. BOGO-00099 pending before RTC Branch 61, Bogo, Cebu, entitled Spouses Antonio and Soledad Divinagracia, et al., plaintiffs versus Leonidisa N. Cometa, et al., defendants; Alberto Tudtud and Hilario Tudtud, Intervenors.
The complainants lost the case before the RTC but filed a notice of appeal on October 6, 1998 and alleged that the appeal was seasonably taken.
After inquiry, the complainants learned that, due to the respondent’s alleged inaction, the records of the case were not transmitted to the appellate court.
The complaint invoked the duty of the Clerk of Court under Section 10, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, requiring transmission of records to the appellate court within thirty (30) days after perfection of the appeal.
The complainants alleged gross and evident bad faith and intentional delay, asserting that the respondent failed to transmit the records for more than one (1) year and five (5) months from October 6, 1998.
The complainants surmised that the delay was intended to give undue advantage to the spouses Divinagracia, enabling them to use and produce the seven parcels of land involved.
The complainants sought dismissal from service, based on the theory of intentional obstruction and possible benefit to the opposing parties.

Respondent’s Defenses

Atty. Caayon asserted that the case was originally filed in the RTC of Cebu City but was unloaded to Branch 61 at Bogo when the court was constituted.
He stated that after decision, both parties and intervenors, including the complainants, filed their notices of appeal on time and the notices were given due course by order of October 20, 1998.
He claimed that the records were mistakenly and without intention placed in a cabinet for disposed and terminated cases.
He asserted that the mistake was discovered only in the later part of January 2000 during inventory taking of cases.
He admitted delay in transmittal but denied it was intentional, denied bad faith, and denied any ill motive or malice.
He explained that when the Deputy Sheriff IV died, he assumed office in an ex-officio capacity and, aside from his Clerk of Court duties, also performed cashier functions due to lack of personnel.
He denied receiving any money or anything of value from the spouses Divinagracia.
He argued that the complaint should be considered closed because he transmitted the records to the Court of Appeals on March 31, 2000, before he received the order to file his comment.

Statutory and Doctrinal Framework

The Court focused on Section 10, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which requires the Clerk of Court to transmit the records to the appellate court within thirty (30) days after perfection of the appeal.
The Court reiterated the expectation that court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must conduct themselves beyond reproach to preserve the judiciary’s good name and standing.
The Court treated the respondent’s admitted failure to transmit within the prescribed period as a breach of the clerk’s administrative duty.
The Court anchored its analysis on prior cases emphasizing diligence in safekeeping and management of court records, including Cruz v. Tanta