MARICHU T. GOFORTH, COMPLAINANT, VS. TOMAS C. HUELAR, JR., OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 11, SAN JOSE, ANTIQUE, RESPONDENT.

Goforth versus Huelar

The Case

This is an administrative case. Marichu T. Goforth filed an affidavit-complaint charging Tomas C. Huelar, Jr., the officer-in-charge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, San Jose, Antique, with negligence for failing to promptly transmit court records to the Court of Appeals. The case matters because it fixes the accountability of the clerk of court, and of the officer-in-charge performing that office, for the timely transmittal of records on appeal, and because it teaches that a retiring official cannot escape administrative liability for gross negligence and for indifference to the directives of the Supreme Court.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed with the Office of the Court Administrator, which furnished the respondent a copy for his comment. The respondent did not file his comment. The Office of the Court Administrator again required him to comply, warning that the case would otherwise be submitted for decision, but he retired from the service in February 2005 without complying. He finally filed his comment in August 2006. In a memorandum, the Office of the Court Administrator found him guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties and of indifference or defiance to the orders of the Court, and recommended a fine of 10,000 pesos, to be deducted from his retirement benefits. The matter was then submitted to the Supreme Court, which adopted the recommendation but increased the fine.

Facts

On January 19, 1999, Judge Nery G. Duremdes, the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, promulgated his decision on a petition for reconstitution of an original certificate of title filed by the complainant. On February 12, 1999, the Solicitor General filed a notice of appeal. On February 23, 1999, Judge Duremdes granted the appeal and directed the respondent to transmit the records of the case to the Court of Appeals.

The complainant followed up with the respondent several times and was assured that the records would be transmitted immediately. In fact, the records were forwarded to the Court of Appeals only on September 23, 2002, more than three years from the approval of the notice of appeal.

When required to comment, the respondent explained that the delay could not be attributed to him but to his subordinates who prepared the records, and that he learned of the delay only when the complainant went to see him. He claimed that after their meeting he immediately instructed his staff to forward the documents, and that in 33 years of government service this was the first administrative complaint against him.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross negligence in the performance of his duties for failing to promptly transmit the records of the case to the Court of Appeals.
• Whether or not the respondent may escape liability by attributing the delay to his subordinates.
• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of indifference or defiance to the orders and resolutions of the Supreme Court.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal or suspension may still be imposed on the respondent, considering that he had already retired from the service.

Applicable Provisions

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

SEC. 10. Duty of the clerk of court of the lower court upon perfection of the appeal. ¾ Within thirty (30) days after the perfection of all the appeals...it shall be the duty of the clerk of court of the lower court: xxx xxx xxx (d) To transmit the records to the appellate court.

This provision fixes the thirty-day period for transmitting the records and is the standard against which the respondent's delay of more than three years is measured.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent was guilty of gross negligence. Under Rule 41, Section 10, the clerk of court is mandated to transmit the records of the case to the appellate court within 30 days from the perfection of the appeal. The respondent transmitted the records only on September 23, 2002, more than three years from the time the notice of appeal was approved. He could not feign ignorance nor free himself of liability, since the complainant herself had made several personal follow-ups with him since 1999, to no avail. As officer-in-charge tasked with the duties of a clerk of court, he performed delicate administrative functions necessary to the prompt and proper dispensation of justice, and should not have slept on the job, as his position required competence and efficiency.

On the second issue, the Court held that the argument that his staff delayed the transmittal was lame. He could not shrug off responsibility for the actuations of the people under his administrative supervision. He had the duty to ensure orderly and efficient record management in the court and to effectively manage the personnel under him. Their infraction was his as well.

On the third issue, the Court held that his accountability was compounded by the fact that he ignored the directive to file his comment on time. This omission showed disrespect to the Court. The Court stressed that an order or resolution of the Court is not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the respondent committed gross negligence in the performance of his duties, a grave offense under the Uniform Rules in Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, punishable with dismissal, suspension or fine as warranted by the circumstances. The same penalty may be imposed for his indifference or defiance to the orders of the Court. Considering, however, that he had already retired from the service in February 2005, the penalty of dismissal or suspension could no longer be imposed on him.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the clerk of court of the lower court must transmit the records of the case to the appellate court within thirty days after the perfection of the appeal, as required by Rule 41, Section 10 of the Rules of Court. Second, the officer-in-charge performing the duties of the clerk of court is bound by the same duty and is accountable for its breach. Third, a court official cannot escape liability by blaming subordinates, because he has the duty to ensure orderly and efficient record management and to effectively manage the personnel under him. Fourth, an order or resolution of the Supreme Court is not a mere request and must be complied with fully and promptly. Fifth, gross negligence is a grave offense punishable with dismissal, suspension or fine, and where the respondent has already retired, the penalty of dismissal or suspension can no longer be imposed, so a fine is deducted from his retirement benefits.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of gross negligence and indifference to its directives and fined him 15,000 pesos, to be deducted from his retirement benefits, with a copy of the resolution forwarded to the Office of Administrative Services so that his retirement and other benefits, less the fine, may be released as soon as possible.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the clerk of court must transmit the records to the appellate court within thirty days from the perfection of the appeal, and that the officer-in-charge who sleeps on this duty is grossly negligent and answerable even after retirement. Examiners like to use this case on the duties of the clerk of court under Rule 41, Section 10, on command responsibility for subordinates, and on the effect of retirement on administrative penalties.