ROSENDO LADORES, COMPLAINANT, VS. ISAURO TUAZON, RESPONDENT.

Respondent Isauro Tuazon
is an employee in the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Ecija, Branch V, who is charged in this
administrative case with having “deliberately suppressed” a
telegraphic motion for postponement sent by the complainant herein Rosendo Ladores, which act
allegedly prejudiced the latter who is one of the defendants in Civil Case No.
353 entitled:  “Domingo Ternida, et al., plaintiffs, versus Cecilia Mercado and Rosendo Ladores,
defendants.”

The records of this case show the following:

Civil Case No. 353 of Branch V, Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, was scheduled for
hearing on February 3, 1971,
at 8:30 o’clock in the morning.  At 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon of February
2, respondent clerk received a telegram signed by Rosendo
Ladores and addressed to the Presiding Judge
requesting postponement of the hearing on the ground that defendants’ counsel,
Atty. Gonzales, would be unable to attend due to the death of the latter’ s
father-in-law. (p. 3, rollo)

When the aforesaid case was called in the morning of February 3, 1971, the trial court,
unaware of the existence of the abovementioned telegram, proceeded with an ex-parte hearing with the Deputy Clerk of Court receiving
the evidence.

On April 28, 1971,
a decision was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the herein
complainant in said civil case.  Upon
receipt of a copy of the decision, defendants filed a motion for new trial
invoking “fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence” based on
the allegation that a telegram was sent asking for postponement of the hearing
in view of the death of the father-la-law of defendants’ counsel which telegram
was either “deliberately or unintentionally” withheld from the
knowledge of the Presiding Judge.

For reasons thus stated in the motion for new trial, the trial
court then presided by Judge Mariano V. Benedicto
issued an order on August 2, 1971,
setting aside the decision of April
28, 1971, and reopening the case for purposes of allowing the
defendants to present their evidence. 
(pp. 15-17, ibid.)

After both parties in the civil case had presented their respective
evidence, the trial court rendered its decision in favor of the plaintiffs
therein.

Is respondent guilty of deliberate suppression of the
subject-telegram?

Although We believe respondent’s allegation that he had no
personal motives for withholding the telegram and prejudicing the herein
complainant, the fact, however, is that said telegraphic motion for
postponement was not brought to the attention of the trial judge who naturally
proceeded with the ex-parte hearing.  Respondent claims that he attached the
telegram to the record of the case, but that could not have been so, because
Judge Benedicto himself in his Order of August 2,
1971, stated that had be been aware of that telegram, the postponement could
have been favorably considered.  (p. 16,
ibid.) From this statement We deduce that no telegram was attached to the
record of Civil Case 353 nor did respondent clerk inform the Deputy Clerk of
Court that a telegram concerning the case was received by him the afternoon
before.

Respondent was undoubtedly remiss in the performance of his
duties as an employee of the Court. 
There is negligence when there is a breach of duty or failure to perform
an obligation.^[1]

We are disposed however to view respondent’s inaction with
leniency because of the following attending circumstances:

(1)   The decision of April 28, 1971, which resulted from the ex-parte hearing of February
3, 1971, was set aside by the trial judge, and the
defendants in the case were given the opportunity to present their evidence;

(2)   This administrative complaint appears to be
more of a retaliatory reaction to an unfavorable decision in the civil case
where the complainant was a defendant, rather than the pursuit for redress of a
legitimate and well-founded grievance, for it was filed more than three years
(June 20, 1974), after the alleged “deliberate suppression”
of the telegram and only after complainant herein was defeated in the case;

(3)   Respondent has a record of not less than
eleven (11) years service in the Court of First Instance of Nueva
Ecija, having served as messenger in said court since
June 1, 1965 and was promoted to process server in December, 1970, with no
administrative complaint having been filed against him except for this
particular case, as per available records in the Court, during which period he
has been cited by the Office of the Provincial Governor of Nueva
Ecija as an Outstanding Employee for the years 1966,
1967 and 1968, for his “marañgal, matapat, malinis, at kanais-nais na paglilingkod sa Pamahalaan at sa Bayan.” (pp. 18-21, rollo)

PREMISES CONSIDERED, We dismiss the complaint but admonish
respondent to be vigilant, zealous, prompt, and attentive in the performance of
his duties for the good of the service, and warn him that future acts of
negligence or misconduct will merit severe disciplinary action from the Court.

So Ordered.

Teehankee, Makasiar,
Concepcion, Jr., and
Martin, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Recto v. Racelis, AM No. P-182, En Banc, April 30, 1976.  Hon. Celestino P.
Juan v. Municipal Judge F.P. Arias, et. al., AM No. P-310, En Banc, August 23, 1976.