JUDGE EDILBERTO S. RAMOS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. DAMASO GREGORIO, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT, RTC, BRANCH 41, PINAMALAYAN, ORIENTAL MINDORO, RESPONDENT.

In a letter to the Court Administrator dated November 28, 1990, Judge Edilberto S. Ramos
complained of several acts of his Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Damaso Gregorio,
such as failing to transmit the records of two (2) cases on appeal and for
coming to work drunk on November 27, 1990 and on several other occasions. Aside from this letter, the Court has
received other complaints regarding respondent’s inefficiency. The letter of Judge Ramos was considered an
administrative complaint against respondent, who was directed to comment
thereon.

In his comment, respondent averred that his failure to transmit
the records of cases on appeal to the Court of Appeals was due to the heavy
workload and the lack of office equipment. As to his alleged drunkenness on November 27, 1990, respondent contends
that he had attended a wedding dance party the night before and that he had
very little sleep. Respondent further
contends that Judge Ramos may have mistaken his lack of sleep as a sign of
drunkenness.

The Court referred the case to the Court Administrator for
evaluation. In a memorandum dated
September 8, 1992, Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez found the
excuses proffered by respondent as weak and lame, and recommended that the
respondent be suspended for one (1) month without pay with a warning that
repetition of this lapse and other administrative lapses would be dealt with
more severely.

On September 30, 1992, the Court referred the case to the
Executive Judge Manuel A. Roman of the Regional Trial Court of Pinamalayan,
Oriental Mindoro for investigation, report and recommendation.

During the hearing of January 20, 1993, Judge Ramos manifested
that respondent had apologized to him with regard to his act of drunkenness,
and that because of said apology he was not interested in pursuing the
administrative complaint, provided that respondent will improve his services to the court. As to his failure to transmit the records of
cases on appeal, respondent manifested that he will submit the case on the
basis of the records and did not submit any other evidence in his behalf.

Judge Ramos formally manifested his disinterest in pursuing the
case in a letter dated February 16, 1993.

On the other hand, Judge Roman informed the Court Administrator
in his letter of January 16, 1993, that based on the records, respondent should
be meted out the penalty recommended by the Court Administrator in his
memorandum of September 8, 1992. However, in view of the lack of interest of Judge Ramos in pursuing the
complaint, Judge Roman recommended that the instant complaint be dismissed to
give respondent another chance.

The recommendation of Judge Roman is not well-taken. The mere fact that Judge Ramos had expressed
his desire not to pursue the complaint is not a ground for the dismissal of the
instant complaint, where the basis thereof had been duly established. Besides,
Judge Ramos’ desistance was only with regard to the charge of drunkenness, and not to the negligent acts of
respondent, such as his failure to immediately transmit the records of cases on
appeal.

Inasmuch as no further evidence was adduced by respondent in his
behalf, the Court adopts the findings and conclusions made by Deputy Court
Administrator Suarez in his memorandum dated September 8, 1992, which are
supported by the evidence, as follows:

“From the facts on record, it is clear that respondent Clerk
of Court was guilty of negligence for his failure to transmit to the Court of Appeals, as of May 8, 1991,
the records of Criminal Cases Nos. P-3276 and 3277 despite the fact that the
notice of appeal was filed as early as February 12, 1990. Respondent’s explanation that the delay was
caused by pressure of work and lack of office equipments cannot be considered a
ground for exoneration, at best, it may be considered as a valid ground for
mitigation of liability. Moreover, the
records disclosed that respondent
did not make any attempt whatsoever to request for an extension of time within
which to transmit the records of the appeal cases upon the former’s failure to
forward the same to the Court of Appeals during the prescribed period of time
as provided for under the Rules of Court.”^[1]

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Damaso Gregorio is hereby
SUSPENDED for one (1) month without pay with a warning that repetition of the
acts complained of and other administrative lapses will be dealt with more
severely.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, and Regalado, JJ., concur.

Puno, J., no part.

^[1]
Memorandum of Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez, p. 2; Rollo,
p. 20.