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. She reported that the case records of three criminal cases for violation of the dangerous drugs law had been transmitted to her office more than eight years after the presiding judge had ordered their transmittal, and that two of the three folders were missing. The letter was endorsed to the Office of the Court Administrator and eventually reached the Judicial Integrity Board, which recommended that two court employees be disciplined. The case matters because it fixes the administrative liability of a branch clerk of court and of the clerk-in-charge of criminal cases for the loss and delayed transmittal of court records, and because it applies the amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, including its schedule of sanctions and its rules on modifying circumstances.

Procedural History

The complainant's letter was endorsed by Executive Judge Mercedita G. Dadole-Ygnacio to the Office of the Court Administrator. The Office of the Court Administrator forwarded the matter to the Judicial Integrity Board, which, under the amended Rule 140, may act by itself on the basis of records and papers duly referred to it. The Office of the Executive Director of the Board required respondent Atty. Denis L. Pacas and respondent Anthony Pacaldo to file their respective comments, which both did. The Office of the Executive Director then submitted a Report and Recommendation: it recommended that the case against Atty. Pacas be dismissed with a stern warning, and that Pacaldo be found guilty of simple neglect of duty and fined 18,000 pesos. The Judicial Integrity Board disagreed in part. In its own Report, it found both respondents equally liable for gross neglect of duty, found Pacaldo additionally guilty of gross insubordination, and recommended a fine of 75,000 pesos for Atty. Pacas and suspension for four months plus a fine of 55,000 pesos for Pacaldo. The matter was elevated to the Supreme Court, which resolved it as an administrative matter and adopted the findings of the Board with modifications.

Facts

On June 29, 2012, Judge Victor A. Teves, Sr. directed that the case folders for three criminal cases against Ceasar R. Baguio, for violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165, be transmitted to the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Cebu. The records were not transmitted. They reached the Office of the Clerk of Court only on November 24, 2020, more than eight years later. Worse, only the original records for the first criminal case were delivered; the records for the other two cases were missing, and machine copies had to be secured from the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu.

Atty. Pacas, the branch clerk of court, prepared an Investigation Report. He explained that the records were supposed to be prepared for transmittal by Anthony Pacaldo, the former clerk-in-charge for criminal cases. When confronted, Pacaldo said he could not locate them. It was only after an extensive search by Florentino C. Villacrusis, the court interpreter, that the original records of the first case were found in a pile of folders under Pacaldo's table.

In his comment, Pacaldo denied receiving direct instructions from Atty. Pacas, claiming that a locally funded employee named Teofilo Bering received the instruction instead, and that there was no document showing he ever held the records. Atty. Pacas insisted that he had directed Pacaldo, not Bering, and supported his claim with affidavits from the wife of the accused, from the acting records officer of the provincial detention center, and from the sheriff in charge of criminal cases, all of whom said that Pacaldo had told them the records could not be found. Pacaldo had also been issued several memoranda for failing to conduct a physical inventory of criminal cases, to update the docket book, and to locate missing records, and for frequently leaving his workstation. When required to conduct a physical inventory before assuming his new post as sheriff, he did not comply and offered lack of time as his excuse.

Issues

• Whether or not respondent Anthony 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. Denis L. Pacas should be held administratively liable, and if so, for what offense and in what amount.

Applicable Provisions

Section 17 of the amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, 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 penalties for the charges found against both respondents, and it classifies gross neglect of duty and gross insubordination as serious charges and simple neglect of duty as a less serious charge.

Section 19 of the same Rule, on mitigating 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 allows the Court to lower the penalty of a first offender and of a respondent who shows remorse, which is exactly what the Court did for 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 is the basis for reducing the penalties below the ordinary range, because each respondent had a mitigating circumstance and neither had an aggravating circumstance.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found respondent Pacaldo guilty of gross neglect of duty in the performance of official functions and of gross insubordination, both serious charges under the amended Rule 140. As the clerk-in-charge for criminal cases, he was directly responsible for the delayed transmittal of the records, and the affidavits and memoranda showed that he knew of the assignment and repeatedly told inquirers that the records could not be found. His defense that Bering was the one instructed failed, because Bering had died in 2013 and could no longer refute the claim, and because 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 relied on the several memoranda Pacaldo had ignored and on his failure to conduct the required physical inventory or make an official turnover.

On the second issue, the Court found Atty. Pacas guilty of simple neglect of duty only, a less serious charge. Although Pacaldo was directly responsible for the delay, Atty. Pacas exercised general supervision over all court personnel and remained the official custodian of judicial records. His responsibility did not end when he delegated the transmittal; it was incumbent on him to see that his instruction was carried out. The Court held that clerks of court are chiefly responsible for the shortcomings of subordinates to whom administrative functions are delegated, and must bear a share of the blame for failing to exercise a higher degree of care and vigilance in supervising subordinates and managing court records. Simple neglect of duty is the failure to give attention to a task expected of an employee, resulting from carelessness or indifference.

On the penalties, the Court applied Sections 19 and 20 of the amended Rule 140. Pacaldo was a first offender, a mitigating circumstance, so for gross neglect of duty the Court imposed suspension of four months without salary and other benefits; for gross insubordination, with no mitigating circumstance, it imposed suspension of six months and one day. Atty. Pacas was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of humanitarian considerations, having expressed remorse, apologized, and acted promptly to secure certified machine copies and to recover the original records. The Court also ruled that his earlier admonition and warning in a judicial audit case could not be treated as an aggravating circumstance, because admonition and warning are not penalties. It therefore imposed on him a fine of 18,000 pesos, payable within 30 days from the finality of the Resolution.

Doctrine

Court employees must observe the highest degree of efficiency and competency in their assigned tasks, because the loss of court records through fault or neglect defeats the dispensation of justice. 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 a serious charge under Section 17 of the amended Rule 140. Gross insubordination is the inexplicable and unjustified refusal to obey an order that a superior is entitled to give and have obeyed, importing a willful or intentional disregard of lawful and reasonable instructions; it is likewise a serious charge. Simple neglect of duty is the failure of a public official or employee to give attention to a task expected of them, resulting from carelessness or indifference; it is a less serious charge. A branch clerk of court, as the official custodian of judicial records, remains liable for their loss even after delegating their custody or transmittal, and is chiefly responsible for the shortcomings of subordinates to whom administrative functions are delegated. Under Section 20, one mitigating circumstance and no aggravating circumstance allows the Court to impose a penalty not less than half of the minimum prescribed, and under Section 19 a first offense and humanitarian considerations are mitigating circumstances. Finally, admonition and warning are not penalties, and a prior case that ended only in admonition or warning cannot be used as an aggravating circumstance.

Disposition

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

Remember This

Remember that a branch clerk of court remains the official custodian of judicial records and cannot escape liability by delegating their custody, so delegation never extinguishes the duty to supervise. Examiners like to use this case on the distinction between gross and simple neglect of duty, on gross insubordination, and on the application of the mitigating circumstances and the manner of imposition under the amended Rule 140.