ANTONIO S. FABICULANA, SR., COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MANUEL B. GADON, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT, RTC BR. 82, ODIONGAN, ROMBLON, RESPONDENT.

Complainant Antonio S. Fabiculana,
Sr., father of the victim in Criminal Case No. OD-415, filed a letter-complaint
with this Court dated 8 August 1994 against respondent Atty. Manuel B. Gadon,
Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 82, of the Regional Trial Court of
Odiongan, Romblon.

The letter-complaint charges
respondent clerk of court with neglect of duties in connection with Criminal Case No. OD-415 entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Sonny
Fadera,” a prosecution for murder,
which was decided by the aforementioned branch of the RTC of Odiongan, Romblon
on 23 August 1991.

Complainant alleges that it took respondent 29 months
after the judgment of conviction and subsequent appeal by the accused in said
criminal case, to forward the records of the case to the Court of Appeals. This, complainant further alleges, allowed
the accused-appellant to continue enjoying liberty pending appeal.

When required to comment, respondent stated that it was a certain
Ciriaco Y. Forlales a sheriff of Branch 82 of the RTC, Odiongan, Romblon, who
neglected to transmit the records of the case to the Court of Appeals. Respondent claimed that he had required the
above-named sheriff to explain why he should not be administratively charged
and that he (respondent) was satisfied that the explanation was adequate. Respondent attached to his comment an
affidavit executed by Ciriaco Y. Forlales stating that:

a) In November 1991, while he was then occupying the position of
Clerk III of Branch 82, an order was issued by the presiding judge ordering the
transmittal of the records of Criminal Case No. OD-415 to the Court of Appeals,
in the wake of accused’s appeal from the judgment of conviction by the trial
court.

b) That he was assigned to review the records of the case and make
sure they were complete and thereafter transmit the same to the Court of
Appeals.

c) That he took the records of the case home so he could complete
his work.

d) That he kept the records locked in a steel cabinet in his
house.

e) That it was only sometime in February 1994 when he saw the
records still in his steel cabinet and he remembered that he unintentionally
forgot to transmit the same to the Court of Appeals.

The letter-complaint and respondent’s comment together with the
aforementioned affidavit were referred by the Court to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report and recommendation.

The OCA, through deputy court administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez,
submitted a report dated 7 November 1994 recommending that respondent Atty.
Manuel B. Gadon be admonished to exercise closer supervision over his
subordinates and that Ciriaco Y Forlales be reminded to be more
conscientious in the performance of his duties.

We agree that the acts of these two (2) court employees merit
administrative sanctions from this Court.

Respondent Atty. Manuel B. Gadon, as Branch Clerk of Court, acts
as the administrative officer of the court. He has control and supervision over all court records, exhibits,
documents, properties and supplies. Among his duties is the prompt and orderly transmittal of appealed cases
and their records to the appellate court. The clerk of court also exercises general supervision over court
personnel.

In this case, Atty. Manuel B. Gadon clearly neglected his duty
when he failed to follow-up the transmittal to the Court of Appeals of the
records of Criminal Case No. OD-415. The admitted negligence of a court employee (in this case, Forlales)
will not in any way excuse his (respondent’s) negligence in not exercising the
proper supervision over his subordinate.

Likewise Ciriaco Y. Forlales, although not a respondent in
complainant’s letter-complaint, should be meted the proper penalty, having
admitted taking the records of the case home and forgetting about them. Court employees are, in the first place, not
allowed to take any court records, papers or documents outside the court
premises. It is clear that Forlales was
not only negligent in his duty of transmitting promptly the records of an
appealed case to the appellate court but he also failed in his duty not to take
the records of the case outside of the court and to subsequently forget about
them.

The penalty recommended by the OCA is too light considering the
gravity of the offense. The acts of the
two (2) court employees are clearly inimical to the speedy administration of
justice.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Atty. Manuel B. Gadon and
Ciriaco Y. Forlales are each ordered to
pay a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), with a stern warning that
commission of the same or similar act or acts in the future will be dealt with
more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Bellosillo, Quiason, and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.