EDUARDO G. BAUTISTA, COMPLAINANT, VS. AVELINO JOAQUIN, JR. DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN, BRANCH III, VALENZUELA, BULACAN, RESPONDENTS.

Respondent Avelino Joaquin, Jr. is
charged with “irregularity in receiving pleading”, which stemmed from
the following incidents:

Eduardo G. Bautista, complainant herein, is the plaintiff in
Civil Case No. 89-V-73 entitled “Eduardo G. Bautista, plaintiff, vs.
Antonio Bautista, and others, defendants,” for Breach of Contract pending
in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch
III.  Sometime on January 10, 1974,
complainant’s counsel filed in said, civil case a “Motion to declare
defendants in default” on the ground that said defendants failed to file
their responsive pleading to the complaint notwithstanding the extension of
fifteen (15) days granted them which expired on December 24, 1973.  On January
14, 1974, the trial court issued an order denying the motion for
lack of merit it appearing that defendants had filed their answer on December 19, 1973.  A motion for reconsideration was submitted by
complainant’s counsel which according to complainant
had not been resolved.  The case was then
set for a pre-trial on February 18, 1974 but before that day, the complainant
and his counsel went to the presiding judge to inform the latter that before filing their “Motion to declare
defendants in default” they examined the records of the civil case in
question and there was no answer attached thereto, and this was on January
8, 1974; that Miss Avelina Macalanda who was
the clerk-in-charge of the records of said civil case was present when they
examined the records and Miss Macalanda even looked at the record book of the court to see if there was an entry of receipt of the answer of the
defendants any time before that date of January 8, 1974 and found none.  The Presiding Judge, upon hearing the
complaint of Eduardo G. Bautista and counsel, called for respondent Avelino Joaquin, Jr. 
who is the branch clerk of court of Branch III, and when asked to
explain respondent admitted to the Judge that he was the one who received the
answer of the defendants on December 19, 1973, but that he forgot to attach
said answer to the records of the civil case due to pressure of work.  (pp. 20-22, rollo)

On the basis of the above incidents, complainant Eduardo G.
Bautista now claims that there was an irregularity committed in connection with the alleged receipt on December
19, 1973 of the answer of the defendants in the civil case considering that the
respondent was not the one in charge of receiving pleadings, and that even if
it were true that he received such a pleading, the same was not attached to the
records as late as January 8, 1974 when the complainant and his counsel
personally examined the records of the case as well as the record book; that
the irregularity is made more evident by the fact that no copy of the answer
had been furnished the counsel for the plaintiff (complainant here) either
personally or by mail as of
December 19, 1973 the supposed date of the filing of the same in court.

In his Comment to the complaint, respondent asserts that the
answer of the defendants was filed at about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of
December 19, 1973 and he was the one who received it because at that time, Miss
Avelina Macalanda, the
receiving clerk happened to be out of the room, but when she returned, he gave
the pleading to her after which he forgot about the whole incident (pp. 2-3,
ibid.)

The foregoing statement made under oath by the respondent in his
comment is however contradicted by the affidavit of Avelina
Macalanda which respondent marked as his “Annex
1”.  According to this affidavit, at
about 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of December 19, 1973, Avelina Macalanda left her room
and went to Branch VIII for purposes of verifying certain records; that
she remembers that sometime Atty. Blancaflor and
Eduardo G. Bautista went to the court to inquire whether the defendants Felipe
Bautista and others had filed their answer and she informed them that there was
none as at that time she did not know that an answer was received and was in
the possession of the deputy clerk of court Avelino
Joaquin, Jr.; that it was only after the visit
of Atty. Blancaflor and the plaintiff Bautista that she came to know
that the said answer of the defendants was in the possession of Avelino
Joaquin, Jr. (pp. 5-6, ibid.)

It cannot be disputed that when
the complainant herein Eduardo G. Bautista and his counsel went to the
office of the respondent on January 8, 1974 there was no pleading attached to
the same which corresponded to the
answer of the defendants in the civil case, and that the supposed answer of the
defendants came to the surface only after the complainant and his counsel had
filed their motion to declare defendants in default.

Undoubtedly, an
irregularity has been committed placing
in serious doubt the
integrity of the court which respondent serves. 
There are various possibilities:  (1) that respondent forgot to attach the pleading allegedly received by him on December 19, 1973 – but this could not be the case here
because respondent in his comment states that he gave the pleading to Avelina Macalanda when the latter returned to the room that same
afternoon; (2) that respondent gave to Avelina Macalanda the “answer” as claimed by him – but
this is contradicted by the affidavit of Avelina Macalanda marked “Annex 1” of respondent’s
comment; and (3) that respondent did not receive any pleading at 4:00 p.m. of
December 19, 1973, and that he
received it days later.

In the administration of justice, litigants repose their faith
and trust in the authenticity and
correctness of court records, and it is the bounden duty of officials
and employees of the court to
maintain and uphold that confidence of the public.  Any act which tends to undermine and corrode the public trust in a wrongdoing
which warrants administrative sanctions the severity of which should be
commensurate with the gravity of the act committed.

We cannot overemphasize the importance of a faithful and accurate
entry of the date of receipt of pleadings filed in court.  Where there is no mechanical device available to
make the tampering of dates impossible, safeguards are taken to ensure the correct
recording of
the time and date when pleadings are received. 
One such safeguard is the keeping of an entry book.  Here, there was such an entry book, but
the filing of the answer of the defendants at 4:00 P.M. on December 19 1973,
was not registered thereon on said date or any date thereafter, thus giving rise to
the fears of complainant,
which We hold to be justified, that said answer was surreptitiously received by respondent after the period given by the trial court to the defendants to file their answer
had expired, especially since, the original of said answer did not bear any proof of receipt of a copy thereof by
complainant’s counsel as of the date, December 19, 1973.  (see page 11, rollo.)

WHEREFORE, We find
respondent AVELINO JOAQUIN, JR. guilty as charged and by way of penalty We
hereby impose upon him a fine
equivalent to his one month salary to
be paid within ten (10) days from notice hereof, with a stern warning
that any other misconduct in the future will be dealt with greater severity.

Let this be spread
on respondent’s personal record.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee,
(Chairman), Makasiar, Martin, Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.