ATTY. CARMEN CARMELA A. ARAULLO-ANTIPORTA, CLERK OF COURT VI, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, MANDAUE CITY, CEBU, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. DENIS L. PACAS, CLER…

Araullo-Antiporta versus Pacas

The Case

This is an administrative matter that began with a letter from Atty. Carmen Carmela A. Araullo-Antiporta, Clerk of Court VI of the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Cebu, reporting the long delayed transmittal and partial loss of the case records in three criminal cases for violations of Republic Act No. 9165. The complaint was directed against Atty. Denis L. Pacas, Clerk of Court V of Branch 54 of the Regional Trial Court of Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, and Anthony Pacaldo, Sheriff IV of Branch 84 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Cebu, who had formerly served as clerk in charge of criminal cases in Branch 54. The case matters because it fixes the disciplinary lines of responsibility within a court: the rank and file employee who actually holds the records, and the clerk of court who remains the official custodian even after delegating the task.

Procedural History

The complaint was endorsed by the Executive Judge to the Office of the Court Administrator, which in turn forwarded the matter to the Judicial Integrity Board. The Office of the Executive Director of the Board required both respondents to file their comments, which they did. The Office of the Executive Director then submitted a Report and Recommendation: it proposed that the case against Atty. Pacas be dismissed with a stern warning, and that Pacaldo be held guilty of simple neglect of duty and fined 18,000 pesos. The Judicial Integrity Board, acting on the same records under the amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, disagreed in part. It found both respondents equally liable for gross neglect of duty, and found Pacaldo additionally guilty of gross insubordination, recommending a fine of 75,000 pesos for Atty. Pacas and suspension of four months plus a fine of 55,000 pesos for Pacaldo. The matter then came before the Supreme Court, which adopted the findings of the Board with modifications.

Facts

On June 29, 2012, Judge Victor A. Teves, Sr. directed that the case folders in the three criminal cases against Ceasar R. Baguio be transmitted to the Office of the Clerk of Court. The records were not transmitted. They reached the Office of the Clerk of Court only on November 24, 2020, more than eight years later, and even then only the original records in one of the three cases were delivered; the other two were missing, so machine copies had to be secured from the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu.

Atty. Pacas prepared an Investigation Report explaining that the records were supposed to be prepared for transmittal by Pacaldo, the former clerk in charge of criminal cases, who said he could not locate them. The original records in the first case were eventually found by the court interpreter in a pile of folders under Pacaldo's table. In his comment, Pacaldo denied receiving any direct instruction from Atty. Pacas, claiming that a locally funded employee detailed to the branch, Teofilo Bering, had received the instruction, and that no document showed he himself ever received the records. Atty. Pacas maintained that he had directed Pacaldo, and attached affidavits from the wife of the accused, from the acting records officer of the provincial jail, and a memorandum from the sheriff in charge of criminal cases, all showing that Pacaldo had been followed up repeatedly and had said the records could not be found. Atty. Pacas apologized and showed that he acted immediately once he learned of the loss.

The records also showed that Pacaldo had been issued several memoranda calling his attention to his failure to conduct a physical inventory of criminal cases, to update the docket book regularly, and to locate missing records, and that he had been reprimanded for frequently leaving his workstation. A memorandum of August 4, 2020 required him to conduct a physical inventory before assuming his post as sheriff in another sala; he neither complied nor made an official turnover, and blamed lack of time and heavy workload.

Issues

• Whether or not respondent Pacaldo should be held administratively liable for gross neglect of duty in the performance of official functions and for gross insubordination.
• Whether or not respondent Atty. Pacas should be held administratively liable, and if so, for what offense and in what degree.
• Whether or not the penalties recommended by the Judicial Integrity Board should be imposed as recommended, in light of the modifying circumstances under the amended Rule 140.

Applicable Provisions

Section 17 of A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, on sanctions, provides:

Section 17. Sanctions. — (1) If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed: (a) Dismissal from service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Supreme Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; (b) Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than six months but not exceeding one year; or (c) A fine of more than 100,000 pesos but not exceeding 200,000 pesos. (2) If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed: (a) Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one month nor more than six months; or (b) A fine of more than 35,000 pesos but not exceeding 100,000 pesos.

This provision supplies the range of penalties for the serious charges against Pacaldo and the less serious charge against Atty. Pacas.

Section 19 of the same Rule, on modifying circumstances, provides:

Section 19. Modifying Circumstances. — In determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed, the Court may, in its discretion, appreciate the following mitigating and aggravating circumstances: (1) Mitigating circumstances: (a) First offense; (b) Length of service of at least ten years with no previous disciplinary record where respondent was meted with an administrative penalty; (c) Exemplary performance; (d) Humanitarian considerations; and (e) Other analogous circumstances.

This provision identifies the mitigating circumstances the Court appreciated in favor of both respondents.

Section 20 of the same Rule, on the manner of imposition, provides:

Section 20. Manner of Imposition. — If one or more aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances are present, the Supreme Court may impose the penalties of suspension or fine for a period or amount not exceeding double of the maximum prescribed under this Rule. If one or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the Supreme Court may impose the penalties of suspension or fine for a period or amount not less than half of the minimum prescribed under this Rule. If there are both aggravating and mitigating circumstances present, the Supreme Court may offset each other.

This provision authorizes the Court to go below the minimum of the prescribed range where only mitigating circumstances are present.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found Pacaldo guilty of gross neglect of duty and gross insubordination, both serious charges under Sections 14(d) and (n) of the amended Rule 140. As clerk in charge of criminal cases, he was directly responsible for the delayed transmittal, and the affidavits and memoranda showed he was fully aware of the assignment and repeatedly told inquirers that the records could not be located. His defense that Bering was the one instructed deserved no credence: it was a mere afterthought, since Bering had passed away in 2013 and could not refute it, and OCA Circular No. 42-2019 prohibits locally funded employees detailed to lower courts from performing tasks relating to the custody of records. The Court defined gross neglect of duty as negligence characterized by a glaring want of care, and held that a delay of more than eight years endangered the public welfare, particularly the right of the accused to the speedy disposition of his case. On gross insubordination, defined as the inexplicable and unjustified refusal to obey a lawful order of a superior, the Court cited his repeated disregard of memoranda from his superiors and his failure to comply with the directive to conduct a physical inventory and make an official turnover.

On the second issue, the Court held Atty. Pacas guilty of simple neglect of duty only, a less serious charge under Section 15(b). Although Pacaldo was directly responsible, the clerk of court exercises general supervision over all court personnel, and his responsibility over the records did not end when he delegated the transmittal. He remained the official custodian of judicial records, and as primary custodian he is liable for any loss. The Court quoted its earlier ruling that clerks of court are chiefly responsible for the shortcomings of subordinates to whom administrative functions normally pertaining to them are delegated, and must bear a share of the blame for failure to exercise a higher degree of care and vigilance in supervising their subordinates and managing court records. Had he put in place an effective case management system and conducted a periodic inventory, the dereliction would not have gone unnoticed for so long.

On the third issue, the Court applied Sections 19 and 20. For Pacaldo, his first offense was a mitigating circumstance, so for gross neglect of duty the Court adopted the recommended suspension of four months without salary and other benefits; for gross insubordination, without any mitigating circumstance, he was suspended for six months and one day. For Atty. Pacas, the Court appreciated humanitarian considerations, given his remorse, his apology, and his immediate action in securing certified machine copies and in persisting until the original records were located and delivered on December 10, 2021. The Court rejected the Board's treatment of his earlier admonition in a judicial audit as an aggravating circumstance, because admonition and warning are not penalties. It then imposed a fine of 18,000 pesos, payable within 30 days from the finality of the Resolution.

Doctrine

A clerk of court is the official custodian of judicial records and exercises general supervision over all personnel of the court. The duty to oversee subordinates imposes a greater responsibility to ensure that they perform their tasks properly, promptly, and efficiently, and that responsibility does not terminate upon delegation. Clerks of court are chiefly responsible for the shortcomings of subordinates to whom administrative functions normally pertaining to them are delegated, and may be held guilty of simple neglect of duty for failing to exercise a higher degree of care and vigilance in supervising them and managing court records. Gross neglect of duty is negligence characterized by a glaring want of care, by acting or omitting to act where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, or by acting with conscious indifference to consequences; it is such neglect which, from the gravity of the case or the frequency of instances, becomes so serious as to endanger or threaten the public welfare. Gross insubordination is the inexplicable and unjustified refusal to obey an order that a superior is entitled to give and have obeyed. Under Section 20 of the amended Rule 140, where one or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the Court may impose a penalty not less than half of the minimum prescribed, and an admonition or warning is not a penalty and cannot serve as an aggravating circumstance.

Disposition

The Court found Anthony Pacaldo guilty of gross neglect of duty and gross insubordination and suspended him from office without salary and other benefits for four months and for six months and one day, respectively, and found Atty. Denis L. Pacas guilty of simple neglect of duty and fined him 18,000 pesos, payable within 30 days from the finality of the Resolution.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a clerk of court remains the official custodian of judicial records, and delegation to a subordinate does not dissolve that responsibility. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between gross and simple neglect of duty, the liability of a supervising clerk for the shortcomings of subordinates, and the correct application of the mitigating and aggravating circumstances under the amended Rule 140.