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

Callejo versus Garcia

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Judge Pedro Callejo Jr., presiding judge of Branch 9 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, charged his own Branch Clerk of Court, Jose Garcia, with non-feasance and gross neglect of duty. The complaint alleged that the clerk repeatedly failed to conduct a physical inventory of the branch docket as required by Administrative Circular Number 1 dated January 28, 1988, and failed to deliver the case folders of pending cases according to the docket book. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct for clerks of court, and because it shows how the Supreme Court treats a clerk who defies lawful orders and misreports the state of his docket.

Procedural History

The complaint, dated April 28, 1988, was transmitted to the Supreme Court by indorsement of the Executive Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. The Office of the Court Administrator evaluated the complaint and recommended investigation. The Court then issued a resolution referring the charges to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Manila for investigation, report, and recommendation. Investigating Judge Felix Barbers, Acting Executive Judge, submitted his report dated December 19, 1988, with detailed recommendations. The Court approved those recommendations and incorporated them in a resolution dated October 4, 1989. When the respondent still did not comply, the complainant filed a manifestation, and the respondent filed a counter-manifestation with resignation. The case was resolved by the Supreme Court in its administrative jurisdiction.

Facts

When Judge Callejo assumed office on August 5, 1985, the branch had been without a presiding judge for some time because of the retirement of Judge Sangco. The new judge directed the respondent clerk to submit an inventory of all pending cases and to deliver the folders for inspection. The respondent did not comply and instead told the judge that there were no pending cases in the branch. He had filed a monthly report for July 1985 showing zero cases pending at the end of that month.

The judge inspected the civil docket books and found 176 pending civil cases as of the time he assumed office. The respondent had annotated the docket book with the words "Cases Deactivated as of August 1, 1985." The judge countered with his own annotation disapproving the deactivation for lack of basis in law and procedure and for lack of authority.

On four separate occasions, January 8, 1987, February 5, 1987, February 16, 1987, and March 2, 1987, the judge issued memoranda ordering the respondent to deliver the records of all civil and criminal cases archived or deactivated as of August 5, 1985. The respondent failed to comply. The investigating judge recommended that the respondent be given three months to finalize and submit under oath all inventories and to turn over the records, failing which he would be dismissed and forfeit all benefits. The Court approved these recommendations in its October 4, 1989 resolution, received by the respondent on December 7, 1989. The period expired without compliance. The respondent later claimed he suffered a stroke on September 23, 1989 and tendered his resignation.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of non-feasance and gross neglect of duty for failing to keep the court records and to comply with the lawful orders of the presiding judge.
• Whether or not the respondent's alleged stroke and his tender of resignation excuse him from compliance with the resolution of October 4, 1989.
• Whether or not the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits is in order.

Applicable Provisions

Section 7, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 7. Safekeeping of records, papers, files, exhibits and public property. The clerk shall 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.

This provision defines the core duty the respondent violated, since the case records were committed to his charge as Branch Clerk of Court.

Section 12, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 12. Other duties. The clerk shall keep such other books and perform such other duties as the court may direct.

This provision supplies the duty to obey the lawful directives of the presiding judge, including the orders to inventory and deliver the case folders.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that misconduct, misfeasance, or malfeasance warranting removal 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. The records showed that the respondent did not perform his duties nor comply with the orders of the court despite four successive memoranda and a three-month grace period. The Court held that the fact that about one-half of the missing records may have been accounted for did not mitigate his willful and intentional neglect, for the duty remained unperformed as to the rest. The respondent aggravated his failure by making it appear in the July 1985 monthly report that there were practically no cases pending when in fact there were many. The Court said this amounted to falsifying the records of his office or trying to mislead the incoming presiding judge.

On the second issue, the Court held that the duty to safely keep court records and to comply with the order of the court could have been performed long ago, so the alleged stroke and the advice to avoid strenuous undertakings could not be considered a valid excuse. It noted that over two years had passed since the respondent received the resolution and still no compliance was in sight.

On the third issue, the Court held that as ordained in the October 4, 1989 resolution, the failure of the respondent to comply shall cause his immediate dismissal from the service with forfeiture of all benefits due. The Court stressed that the conduct of everyone connected with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, and must at all times not only be characterized with propriety and decorum but above all else must be above suspicion.

Doctrine

A Branch Clerk of Court is bound by Section 7, Rule 136 to safely keep all records, papers, files, and exhibits committed to his charge, and by Section 12, Rule 136 to perform such other duties as the court may direct. Willful and intentional neglect of these duties, connected with the performance of official functions, constitutes gross neglect of duty warranting dismissal. Partial compliance does not mitigate the offense, because the duty remains unperformed as to the rest. Illness is no excuse where compliance could have been accomplished long before. The conduct of every officer of the court must be above suspicion.

Disposition

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

Remember This

Memorize the line that the conduct of everyone connected with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must be above suspicion. Examiners use this case to test the administrative duties of clerks of court under Rule 136 and the penalty for willful neglect of those duties.