HILARIO TUDTUD AND ALBERTO TUDTUD, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. REY D. CAAYON, CLERK OF COURT VI, RTC OF BOGO, CEBU, RESPONDENT.

Tudtud versus Caayon

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Hilario Tudtud and Alberto Tudtud against Atty. Rey D. Caayon, the Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Bogo, Cebu. The complainants were the intervenors in a civil case for seven parcels of land. They lost before the trial court but filed their notice of appeal on time. What followed was a long silence: the records of the case were never sent up to the Court of Appeals. The Tudtuds charge the clerk with serious misconduct, graft and corruption, and dishonesty, and ask that he be dismissed from the service. The case matters because it fixes the standard of diligence owed by the clerk of court in the transmittal of records on appeal, and it tells us how the Court classifies and penalizes a breach of that duty.

Procedural History

The complainants filed a sworn letter-complaint with the Supreme Court. The Court Administrator required the respondent to comment, which he did through the Executive Judge of Bogo, Cebu. The matter was then referred to the Court Administrator, who submitted a Report and Recommendation finding that there had indeed been a delay of one year and five months in the transmittal of the records, and recommending a fine of five thousand pesos with a warning. Both parties manifested that they were willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings. The case was thus resolved by the Supreme Court as an original administrative matter, on the strength of the Court Administrator's report and the pleadings filed.

Facts

The Tudtuds were intervenors in a civil case pending before Branch 61 of the Regional Trial Court of Bogo, Cebu. The case had originally been filed in Cebu City and was unloaded to Bogo when that branch was constituted. A decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs. Both the defendants and the intervenors Tudtuds filed their notices of appeal on time, and by order dated October 20, 1998, the appeals were given due course. The notice of appeal of the Tudtuds was filed on October 6, 1998.

Thereafter, the records were never transmitted to the Court of Appeals. When the Tudtuds inquired, they learned that the records had not moved because of the inaction of the respondent clerk. More than one year and five months passed from the perfection of the appeal. The complainants suspected that the delay was deliberate, designed to let the prevailing plaintiffs, the spouses Divinagracia, continue to enjoy the use and produce of the seven parcels of land in litigation.

In his comment, the respondent admitted the delay but denied bad faith. He explained that the records had been mistakenly and unintentionally placed in a cabinet for disposed and terminated cases, and were discovered only in the later part of January 2000 during an inventory of cases. He added that when the Deputy Sheriff died, he assumed that office in an ex officio capacity, and on top of his duties as Clerk of Court he performed the duties of cashier, prepared cash books and reports, issued official receipts, and processed applications for probation and bail bonds, all due to lack of personnel. He transmitted the records to the Court of Appeals on March 31, 2000, even before he received the order to file his comment.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent clerk of court is liable for failing to transmit the records of the case to the Court of Appeals within the period fixed by the Rules of Court.
• Whether or not the delay in transmittal was attended by bad faith, graft and corruption, or dishonesty, as the complainants allege.
• Whether or not the respondent's heavy workload and lack of personnel excuse his failure to perform his duty.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Court Administrator is proper.

Applicable Provisions

Section 10, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 10. Duty of clerk of court of the lower court upon perfection of appeal. Within thirty (30) days after perfection of the appeal, the clerk of court of the court which rendered the judgment shall transmit to the appellate court the original record or the approved record on appeal, together with the proof of service of the notice of appeal and the certificate of the court stenographer.

This is the exact duty the respondent failed to discharge, and it fixes the thirty day period against which his delay of one year and five months is measured.

Civil Service Commission Resolution Number 99-1936 classifies simple neglect of duty as a less grave offense and fixes the penalty, as the Court states it:

Simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense and imposes the penalty of suspension of one (1) month and one (1) day to six months for the first offense.

This classification governs the characterization of the offense and supplies the range from which the Court chooses the penalty.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent clearly failed to perform his duties under Section 10, Rule 41. The records should have been transmitted within thirty days after the perfection of the appeal. They were not transmitted until March 31, 2000, more than one year and five months later. The Court reminded that the conduct required of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, so as to keep them free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary.

On the second issue, the Court did not sustain the charge of bad faith, graft and corruption, or dishonesty. It found the respondent guilty instead of simple neglect of duty. The Court cited its recent rulings in which clerks of court were found guilty of simple neglect of duty for failing to act promptly on cases, for failing to keep records safely, and for simple negligence, and were penalized accordingly.

On the third issue, the Court rejected the excuse of heavy workload. It held that the excuse of a heavy caseload in his branch is not a valid justification for the infraction by a Branch Clerk of Court. The claim that the failure was not motivated by bad faith, the Court said, rests on shallow ground. As officers of the Court, clerks are expected to discharge their duty of safekeeping court records with diligence, efficiency and professionalism.

On the fourth issue, the Court noted that simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense carrying suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense. But consistent with its rulings, it treated the fact that this was the respondent's first offense as a mitigating circumstance, and sustained the recommendation of the Court Administrator.

Doctrine

A branch clerk of court is charged with the efficient recording, filing, and management of court records, and with administrative supervision over court personnel. Under Section 10, Rule 41, the clerk of court of the court which rendered judgment must transmit the original record or the approved record on appeal to the appellate court within thirty days after the perfection of the appeal. Failure to do so constitutes simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense under Civil Service Commission Resolution Number 99-1936, penalized by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense. A heavy caseload or lack of personnel is not a valid justification. Where the respondent is a first offender, the Court may impose a fine in lieu of suspension. The conduct of all court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must be beyond reproach, so that no suspicion may taint the judiciary.

Disposition

The complaint was given due course, and Atty. Rey D. Caayon was found guilty of simple neglect of duty and ordered to pay a fine of five thousand pesos, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar infractions shall be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the rule: the clerk of court must transmit the records to the appellate court within thirty days after the perfection of the appeal, and failure to do so is simple neglect of duty, not bad faith. Examiners use this case to test the administrative liability of court personnel and the rule that heavy workload never excuses a clerk's neglect.