JUDGE PEDRO J. CALLEJO, JR., COMPLAINANT, VS. JOSE D. GARCIA, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT, METC, BRANCH 9, MANILA, RESPONDENT.

In a letter-complaint dated April 28, 1988 transmitted to this
Court by 1st Indorsement of Executive Judge Tirso L. Briones, MeTC, Manila,
complainant Judge Pedro J. Callejo Jr., of the MeTC, Branch 9, Manila, charged
his Branch Clerk of Court, respondent Jose D. Garcia, with non-feasance and
gross neglect of duty, for the latter’s continued failure to conduct a physical
inventory of the docket of said branch as required by Administrative Circular
No. 1, dated January 28, 1988 and to deliver the case folders of cases still
pending therein according to its docket book.

The Office of the Court Administrator, after evaluation of the
complaint, recommended an investigation of the charges in a memorandum dated
August 17, 1988.

On September 5, 1988, the Court issued a resolution refer­ring
the charges to the Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Manila, for
investigation, report and recommendation.

Investigating Judge Felix V. Bargers, Acting Executive Judge,
Regional Trial Court, Manila, submitted a report dated December 19, 1988.

The investigation established the following facts:

Upon his assumption of duties as Presiding Judge of Branch 9 of
the MeTC, Manila on August 5, 1985, complainant directed respondent Clerk of
Court to submit an inventory of all pending cases in Branch 9 and to deliver to
him the folders or expedien­tes of said cases for inspection. The said court had, for sometime, been
without a presiding judge due to the retirement of its then incumbent Judge Sangco. Respondent did not comply with the directive
and instead informed complainant that there were no pending cases in Branch
9. It appears that respondent Branch
Clerk of Court had filed with this Court a Monthly Report covering the month of
July 1985, showing that there was “zero” number of cases pending in
Branch 9 at the end of the said month.

Complainant inspected the civil docket books of his court and
found out that there were 176 pending civil cases as of the time he assumed
office and that respondent made an annotation in said docket book, as follows: “Cases Deactivated as of August 1,
1985.” Complainant, in turn, wrote a counter-annotation in the said docket
book, as follows: “Disapproved for lack of basis in law and procedure and
for lack of authority.”

On four separate occasions thereafter (January 8, 1987, February
5, 1987, February 16, 1987 and March 2, 1987), com­plainant issued memoranda
ordering respondent to deliver the expedientes or records of all civil and
criminal cases archived or “deactivated” as of August 5, 1985. Respondent failed to comply.

Based on the foregoing established facts, Investigating Judge
Barbers, in his report dated December 19, 1988, made the following
recommendation:

“1. As the respondent has been remiss and has
utterly failed to comply with the lawful orders of complainant, respondent is
given a period of three (3) months counted upon receipt of a copy of the de­cision
of the Honorable Supreme Court in the above-entitled administrative case, to
finalize and submit to the Honorable Court Administrator (copy furnished) to
the complainant, all inventories of pending civil and criminal cases as of
August 5, 1985 before Branch 9 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, as
well as to turn over all the records and expedientes of said cases to the
complainant otherwise, his failure to comply shall cause his immediate
dismissal from the service and forfeiture of all benefits that are due
him. The inventory submitted shall be
signed by the respondent and shall be made under oath;

2. The respondent during this same period of
three (3) months is also ordered to submit to the complainant, copy furnished
the Honorable Court Ad­ministrator, a complete list of case criminal and civil,
filed in Branch 9 from August 5, 1985 to the present based on the court
dockets, and the expedien­tes of these cases listed for delivery to the com­plainant,
failure (in) which shall be a cause for dismissal and forfeiture of all
benefits due him;

3. As respondent has manifested his desire
during the investigation to retire from the service, request for retirement
shall not be acted on or con­sidered unless he obeys what is enjoined in the
first and second paragraphs of this RECOMMENDATION;

4. No further extensions shall be granted to
the respondent to comply with these recommendations;

5. That during these three (3)-month period
given to him to finish his work, the respondent shall not perform nor shall be
assigned any duty attached to his office, so that he could concentrate and
finish his assignment within the prescribed period.”

This Court approved the aforesaid recommendations and
incorporated them in a resolution dated October 4, 1989. A copy of the said resolution was received
by respondent on December 7, 1989.

On January 5, 1990, complainant filed with this Court a
manifestation alleging that respondent has not complied with the October 4,
1989 resolution of this Court, and praying that he (complainant) be allowed to
replace respondent and that a duly authorized representative of the Clerk of
Court be desig­nated to make an inventory of the cases actually located for
delivery to him (complainant). Respondent filed a Counter-Manifestation With Resignation on January 16,
1990, alleging, among others, that he suffered a stroke on September 23, 1989
and was advised to avoid strenuous undertakings, and tendering his resignation
from the service. In his Reply With
Manifesta­tion filed on March 21, 1990, complainant alleged, among others, that
the three-month period given to respondent within which to comply with
paragraphs 1 and 2 of the resolution dated Oc­tober 4, 1989 had expired without
respondent submitting any of the requirements stated in the said resolution.

After carefully deliberating on the facts, the Court finds that
dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits is in order.

It is settled that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance,
warranting removal from office of an officer, must have a direct relation to
and be connected with the performance of official duties, amounting either to
maladministration or will­ful, intentional neglect and failure to discharge the
duties of the office (Sarigumba vs. Pasok, 155 SCRA 646 [1987]).

Under Section 7, Rule 136, Rules of Court, it is the duty of the
Clerk of Court (including the Branch Clerk of Court) to safely keep all
records, papers, files, exhibits and public property committed to his charge,
including the library of the court, and the seal and furniture belonging to his
office.

It is likewise the duty of the clerk to keep such other books and
perform such other duties as the court may direct (Sec. 12, Rule 136, Rules of
Court).

Undisputedly, the records of the cases in question were committed
to the charge of respondent as Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 9 of the MeTC,
Manila. Consequently, it was his duty
to safely keep them and in connection therewith to perform such other duties as
the court may direct.

But going over the records, it is clear that respondent did not
perform his duties nor comply with the order of the court despite repeated
directives from his superior, the com­plainant, contained in four (4)
successive memoranda plus three (3) months grace period within which to comply
granted him in the resolution of October 4, 1989. The fact that about one-half of the missing records of cases may
have been accounted for by respondent does not mitigate his willful and
intentional neglect for the duty remains unperformed as to the rest.

Respondent aggravated his failure to comply with his duties by
making it appear in the monthly report (for the month of July, 1985) which he prepared
just before complainant assumed his duties as the new presiding judge, that
there were practically no cases pending in Branch 9 at the end of the month,
when in fact, there were many. Otherwise stated, respondent falsified the records of his office or
tried to mislead the incoming pre­siding judge of Branch 9, either of which
does not speak well of his conduct and behavior as an officer of the Court.

Indeed, the conduct and behavior of everyone connected with an
office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to
the lowliest clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of
responsibility. His conduct at all
times must not only be characterized with propriety and decorum, but above all
else, must be above suspicion (Jereos, Jr. vs. Reblando, Sr., 71 SCRA 126
[1976]).

In this Court’s resolution of October 4, 1989, a copy of which
was received by respondent on December 7, 1989, respond­ent was given a period
of three (3) months within which to sub­mit the required inventory of
cases. The period expired without
compliance from respondent. It is now
over two (2) years since respondent received the said resolution and still no
compliance is in sight.

On the other hand, the duty to safely keep court records and to
comply with the order of the court could have been per formed long ago, hence,
the fact that respondent allegedly suffered a stroke on September 23, 1989 and
was advised to avoid strenuous undertakings, may not be considered a valid
excuse from non-compliance with the resolution.

Branch Clerks of Court must realize that their administrative
functions are just as vital to the prompt, and proper administration of
justice. They are charged with the
efficient recording, filing and management of court records, besides having
administrative supervision over court personnel. They play a key role in the complement of the Court and cannot be
permitted to slacken on their jobs under one pretext or another (Nidua vs.
Lazaro, 174 SCRA 581 [1989]).

As ordained in the October 4, 1989 resolution, failure of
respondent to comply therewith shall cause his immediate dismissal from the
service with forfeiture of all benefits due.

Accordingly, for non-feasance and gross neglect of duty,
the Court Resolved to Dismiss respondent Jose D. Garcia from the service with
forfeiture of all retirement benefits otherwise due to him.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras,
Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Grino-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado, Davide, Jr.,
Romero, and Nocon, JJ., concur.