RODOLFO PAA, COMPLAINANT, VS. VALENTIN C. REMIGIO, CLERK OF COURT, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ISABELA, BR. III, RESPONDENT.

The respondent Valentin C. Remigio, Clerk of Court of the Court
of First Instance of Isabela, Branch III, is charged “for refusing to
perform his duties and obligation, and for defying a lawful order of the
Honorable Court, Court of First Instance, Branch V, Echague, Isabela” by
the complainant Rodolfo Paa in a verified complaint dated May 24, 1977
specifying as follows:

“That more or less, three (3) years ago, undersigned filed a
Civil Case, docketed as Civil Case No. Br. V-207, in the Court of First Instance,
Branch V-­Echague, Isabela. Corresponding summons was forwarded to VALENTIN REMIGIO for purposes of
services to the defendant IGNACIO CABAUATAN, a Deputy Provincial Sheriff for
and in the Province of Isa­bela, who was then assigned in Branch III, CFI,
Cabagan, Isabela. For TWO YEARS AND
FOUR MONTHS (2 Yrs. 4 months) said VALENTIN REMIGIO did not serve the summons
upon the defendant as shown by the fact that no service of summons was made. For failure of VALENTIN REMIGIO to submit
the corresponding service of summons, the Honorable Judge, Court of First
Instance, Branch V, Echague, Isabela, issued an order last March 23, 1977,
ordering VALENTIN REMIGIO to submit a service of summons, as shown by the order
of the Honorable Court, a copy of the same is hereto attach as Annex
“A” of this complaint. Inspite of the lapse of the period prescribed by the Honorable Court,
said VALENTIN REMIGIO, in defiance of a lawful order of the Honorable Court,
failed and refuses to submit a return of service, which acts hampers and
frustrate the administra­tion of justice to herein complainant, victim of an
injustice committed by IGNACIO CABAUATAN, also a Deputy Provin­cial Sheriff of
Isabela.”

Attached as Annex “A” to the complaint is a certified
true copy of the order of the Hon. Procoro J. Donato, Judge of the Court of
First Instance of Isabela issued by him in Civil Case No. Br-V-207 which reads
as follows:

“It appears from the record of this case that the summons,
together with a copy of the complaint, was sent to the defendant, Sheriff
Ignacio Cabauatan, through the Clerk of Court, Branch III of this Court, at
Cabagan, Isabela, and that the same was received by him on December 2, 1974, as
evidenced by the registry return card. Despite
the lapse of 2 years, 3 months and 21 days, no return of the summons was ever
made.

WHEREFORE, the Clerk of Court, Branch III of this Court, at
Cabagan, Isabela, is hereby ordered to effect the return of the summons within
five (5) days from receipt of this Order.”

The complaint having been referred to respondent Clerk of Court
Valentin Remigio for comment by the Acting Judicial Consultant on June 17,
1977, the respondent submitted the following explanation dated July 8, 1977, to
wit:

“A registered letter containing the summons and copy of the
complaint in the above-entitled case was received by Mr. Isidoro Salazar, Clerk
of this Court, on December 9, 1976, and the same was handed to me on the same
date, and the same was only served upon defendant Ignacio Caba­uatan on the
11th day of December, 1976 by delivering to him the copy of the complaint and
letting him sign the summons issued in the said case; that after the service of
the summons upon the defendant, as it was already 5:00 o’clock in the
afternoon, I kept the summons among other papers inside the drawer of my office
table with the intention to prepare the return of service the following day,
but due to pressure of work, I inadvertently forgot all about the return
service of the summons; that I discovered the non-service of the same when I
received the 1st indorsement dated June 17, 1977 to­gether with the complaint
of Rodolfo Paa on July 1, 1977. As
regards the claim of the complainant that I defied the lawful order of the
Court of First Ins­tance, Branch V, Echague, Isabela, I had never disobeyed any
lawful orders nor have the intention to defy the same as I had always been
prompt in complying with the rules and lawful orders of the courts; that this
incident is an unavoidable cir­cumstance beyond my control as aforestated. I received a registered mail from the 5th
Branch of the Court on March 30, 1977 but it was misplaced unopened. Hence, I did not know the contents of the
same, pre­sumably, it contained the order referred to by the complainant,
otherwise, had I known of its contents, I should have com­plied with the same.

In view hereof, it is respectfully requested that the complaint of
Mr. Ro­dolfo Paa be disregarded as, after all, the summons which is the subject
of the complaint was served immediately upon receipt thereof, as evidenced by a
copy of the said summons duly received and properly signed by Ignacio Cabauatan
on December 11, 1976.”

Respondent also submitted a copy of the order of Judge Procoro J.
Donato dated July 19, 1977 issued in Civil Case No. Br-V-207 which stated as
follows:

“Just received is a written manifes­tation, dated July 9,
1977, of Atty. Va­lentin C. Remigio, Clerk of Court at Branch III of this
Court, Cabagan, Isabela, which manifestation is quoted in full as follows:

“COME NOW the undersigned Clerk of Court and unto this
Honorable Court, respectfully states and manifests:

That the Clerk of this Court, Mr. Isidoro Salazar, received a re­gistered
Mail Matter containing the summons and a copy of the complaint in the
above-entitled case on De­cember 9, 1976;

That the said summons together with the copy of the complaint was
handed to the undersigned immediately and was served to the defendant Igna­cio
Cabauatan on the 11th day of De­cember, 1976;

That after the service of the summons upon the defendant, Ignacio
Cabauatan, it was already 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, I kept the summons
among other papers inside the drawer of my office table with the intention to
prepare the return of service the following day, but due to pressure of work, I
inadvertently forgot all about the return service of the summons;

That the undersigned discovered the non-service of the same when he
received the 1st Indorsement dated June 17, 1977 together with the com­complaint
of Mr. Rodolfo Paa on July 1, 1977, from the office of the Ju­dicial
Consultant, Supreme Court, Manila;

That prior to the 1st Indorsement dated June 17, 1977, on March 30,
1977 the undersigned received a registered mail matter from the 5th branch of
this Honorable Court but it was misplaced un­opened. Hence, I did not know the contents of the same, presumably, it
contained the order referred to by the com­plainant, otherwise, had I known its
contents, I should have complied with the same.

WHEREFORE, in view of all the fore­going, it is respectfully
submitted that the return of service of the summons served upon the defendant,
Ignacio Caba­uatan, duly signed by him, be given due course, the same summons
is respectfully return to this Honorable Court, thru the Clerk of Court of same
Court.

Cabagan for Echague, Isabela, July 9, 1977.

(SGD)
VALENTIN C. REMIGIO

Clerk of Court”

A cursory perusal thereof will readily show that said Clerk of
Court was grossly negligent in the discharge and flagrantly inefficient in the
per­formance of his duties, to say the least, as borne out by the following:

1.      
On November 27, 1974, the summons, together with a copy of the
complaint, for the defendant, Deputy Sheriff Ignacio Cabauatan, was coursed to
him for proper service, which was received by him on December 2, 1974, as
evidenced by the registry return receipt attached to the record. Des­pite the unusual length of time from
then to the present, no action was taken by him;

2.      
On December 3, 1976, another summons with a copy of the complaint,
addressed to the same Ignacio Cabauatan, was again sent to him for service,
which was also received by him on December 9, 1976, as evidenced by the
registry return receipt attached to the record. In spite of his receipt thereof, no action was taken by him;

3.      
On March 23, 1977, this Court issued an Order directing him to
effect the return of the summons within five (5) days from receipt of said
Order. It was received by him on March
30, 1977, as evidenced by the registry re­turn receipt attached to the
record. Again, no action was taken by
him.

To compound his omissions, he in­ferentially admitted from his said
ma­nifestation that were it not for the 1st Indorsement, dated June 17, 1977,
of the Office of the Judicial Consultant, Supreme Court (which acted on a
complaint of the plaintiff herein, Rodolfo Paa), he would not have still taken
any action on the two summonses sent to him for service upon Ignacio Cabauatan
who now appears to be a Deputy Provincial Sheriff of Branch III of this Court.

His explanation that he “inad­vertently forgot all about the
return service, of the second summons after it was served upon the defendant,
Ignacio Cabauatan, on December 11, 1976, osten­sibly due to pressure of
work”, deserves not even a scant consideration. For if he is really true to his duties as a Clerk of Court, he
could have realized that making a return of service of a court process is but
one of those strictly exacted from him by law. Thus, if he be­lieves he cannot perform the task, there is no justification
for him to stay a minute longer in his present position. His official actuation was exacerbated by
his very admission that he allegedly “misplaced unopened” a registered
mail matter which came from this Court (which obviously was the Order of this
Court adverted to above). If, indeed,
he is faithful to his obligations as a court employee, he could right then and
there opened the same, aware that it is a com­munication coming from this
Court. And even assuming for the nonce
the verity of his claim that said registered mail matter was
“misplaced unopened”, he could have with ease communicated with the
Clerk of this Court and inquired what the mail matter was all about. But he chose to ignore it, as can be gleaned
from his failure (or sheer indolence) to even open it. He just folded his hands in abject unconcern
and pretended not to know anything about it until he received a communication
from the Office of the Judicial Consultant. Above all, his deportment caused unnecessary and undue delay in the
early disposition of the case.

There is nothing which the Court can simply ferret out from his
explana­tion to mitigate his utter negligence and inexcusable omissions except
per­haps the fact that this is his first offense known to this Court.

WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing considerations, the Court
hereby sternly reprimands him for his gross negligence and inexcusable failure
in the performance of his duties as a Clerk of Court, with the warning that a
repetition thereof shall be dealt with more severely.

Let copies of this Order be for­warded to the Acting Judicial
Consultant, Supreme Court, Metro Manila, for his in­formation and appropriate
action and to the Deputy Clerk of Court and Adminis­trative Officer, Supreme
Court, Metro Manila, for entry in the personal file of said Clerk of Court
Valentin C. Re­migio.”

It is clear and evident from the answer of respondent dated July
8, 1977 and the two orders issued by Judge Pro­coro J. Donato dated March 23,
1977 and July 19, 1977 that respondent was grossly negligent in the discharge
of his official duties. When respondent
received the first sum­mons together with a copy of the complaint for one of
the defendants on December 2, 1974, no action was taken by him thereon. When another summons with the copy of the
complaint for the same defendant was received by res­pondent on December 9,
1976, he also took no action thereon and for the third time when he received on
March 30, 1977 the Order of the Court directing him to make the return of the
summons within five (5) days from receipt of said order respondent again took
no action. Respondent’s ex­planation
that he “inadvertently forgot all about the return service” of the
second summons after it was served upon the defendant Cabauatan due to pressure
of work and his admission that he “misplaced unopened” a registered
mail matter sent by the Court of First Instance of Isa­bela, Branch V, which
obviously referred to the order dated March 23, 1977, cannot be excused even if
this is his first offense.

The stern reprimand imposed upon him by Judge Donato for such
gross negligence and inexcusable failure in the performance of his duties as a
Clerk of Court with the warning that a repetition thereof shall be dealt more
severely, is too light a penalty for the respondent. As Clerk of Court, respondent should be the model for his
co-employees to act speedily and with dispatch on their assigned task to avoid
the clogging of cases in court and thereby assist in the administration of
justice without undue delay. We find
that the explanation of the res­pondent is unsatisfactory and having shown
himself not to be a fitting example of official integrity, respon­sibility and
efficiency, respondent deserves a penalty heavier than a stern reprimand.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby resolves to impose a fine upon
respondent Clerk of Court Valentin C. Remigio equivalent to his three months
salary and to authorize the Collecting and Disbursing Officer, the Accounting
Officer, the Budget and Finance Officer and the Auditor, all of this Court, to
withhold the salary of respondent until this fine is fully paid.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Fernandez, De Castro, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.