BARTOLOME MACARAEG, COMPLAINANT, VS. OSCAR BERMUDEZ, CLERK OF COURT, COURT OF AGRARIAN RELATIONS, BRANCH VI, PANIQUI, TARLAC, RESPONDENT.

This is an administrative complaint filed by complainant
Bartolome Macaraeg against respondent Oscar Bermudez, Clerk of Court, Court of
Agrarian Relations, Branch VI, Paniqui, Tarlac for failure of the latter to
transmit the records of the CAR Case No. 2628-T-’73 entitled “Segundo
Rapada and Mauricia de Guzman, plaintiffs, vs. Bartolome Macaraeg, et al,
defendants” to the Court of Appeals within the reglementary period as
provided for by Section 18, PD No. 946, which reads as follows:

“The Court of Agrarian Relations shall forward to the Court of
Appeals the complete records of the case within a non-extendible period of
fifteen (15) days from receipt of a notice of appeal, if no motions for
reconsideration are filed.  In the event
that motions for reconsideration are filed, the records shall be forwarded to
the appellate court within a like period from receipt by the party concerned of
the denial of the last motion for reconsideration.” (Fourth
paragraph of Section 18, PD No. 946.)

In his sworn complaint, complainant alleged that his counsel in
the aforesaid CAR case filed on May 5, 1977 a notice of appeal with the Court
of Agrarian Relations, Branch VI, Paniqui, Tarlac; that upon verification with
the aforementioned court, Eufracia Macaraeg, one of the defendants in the said
CAR case, found out that the records of the case were not yet forwarded to the
Court of Appeals; that his counsel confronted the staff of the respondent Clerk
of Court, and the former discovered that the aforesaid records were still with
the Court of Agrarian Relations; that he and his counsel requested the Court of
Appeals that a letter-order be forwarded to the said Court of Agrarian
Relations so that the records should be transmitted to the Court of Appeals;
that acceding to the foregoing request, the Court of Appeals sent to the
respondent Clerk of Court a letter-order requiring the latter to forward the
whole original records of the aforesaid case or a certified true copy there­of
to the former within 5 days from receipt the letter-order that on June 21,
1977, his counsel found out again that the records have not as yet been
transmitted to the Court of Appeals; and that it was only on June 27, 1977 that
the aforesaid records were forwarded to and received by the Court of Appeals.

In his answer-explanation respondent Clerk of Court averred that
on May 5, 1977, he received a notice of appeal in the above-mentioned CAR Case
No. 2628-T-’73, and on May 9, 1977, he directed one of the stenographers to
prepare the records for transmittal to the Court of Appeals; that it is the
policy of the Presiding Judge of the said court that a certified true copy of
the records of a case being brought on appeal should be prepared to remain with
the court for reference in case a motion for execution pending appeal be filed
pursuant to Rep. Act No. 5434 and PD No. 946; that an average of three to four
cases are being appealed every month and because the stenographers are occupied
during the hearing of cases, it takes them ten to fifteen days to prepare a
certified true copy of the records of each case; that only the original copies
of the transcripts of the said case are existing; that efforts were exerted to
locate copies of the transcript but to no avail; that stenographer Leonora
Garcia who assisted in all the proceedings of the aforesaid case has resigned
in December, 1976; that respondent Clerk of Court instructed Mr. Fontanilla to
contact Mrs. Garcia personally, but she could not be contacted because she is
busy with her work as an underwriter of Manila Bankers Life Insurance Company,
Inc; that while preparing the certified copy of the records of the case and
trying to secure the four copies of all its transcripts, respondent on June 14,
1977 received a letter from the Court of Ap­peals directing him to transmit the
original or certified true copy of the records of the aforesaid case; that on
June 24, 1977, being a special public holiday in Manila, respondent delivered
the said records at the Central Office of the Court of Agrarian Relations,
Quezon City; that the aforesaid Central Office forwarded the records to the
Court of Appeals on June 27, 1977, the next working day; that respondent had no
intention to delay the transmittal of the said records to the Court of Appeals
nor did he deliberately fail to comply with the provisions of PD No. 946; and
that this instant administrative complaint is a simple case of harassment
against the respondent because the herein complainant and Eufracia Baluyot are
among the landowners who lost in the said case in favor of their tenants.

We find that respondent Clerk of Court may not be fully
exonerated as he was remiss in supervising his subordinates.  Stenographer Leonora Garcia was under his
supervision as Clerk of Court.  The
respondent should have instructed Leonora Garcia to transcribe all her
stenographic notes before she resigned from her position as stenographer or at
least, made an effort to convince her to transcribe the stenographic notes
during Saturdays and Sundays after she had actually resigned from her said position.  Respondent’s failure to exercise closer
supervision over all the stenographers, in particular, Leonora Garcia cannot be
excused.

The principle of command responsibility or “respondeat al
superior” however, may not be made to apply in an absolute manner because
even the closest control or supervision over subordinates could not fully and
absolutely insure that they would not commit negligence in the performance of
their duties.^[1]
Respondent cannot be expected to be at all times watching and supervising continuously
the performance of duties of his subordinates since the latter are presumed to
be responsible public servants.

Although respondent cannot escape responsibility for his failure
to exercise closer supervision over his subordinates and in not prescribing an
office procedure by which the complete records of a case shall be forwarded to
the Court of Appeals within the reglementary period as provided for by Section
18, PD No. 946, he deserves some degree of leniency.  Efforts were exerted by respon­dent to get in
touch with Leonora Garcia but the latter could not be located, for she was so busy as an underwriter of Manila Bankers Life Insurance
Company, Inc.  Moreover, except for the
resultant delay in the transmittal of the above-mentioned records, there was no
appreciable harm caused thereby to the complainant since the aforesaid records
were forwarded to the Court of Appeals on June 27, 1977, one month and 22 days after the receipt of
notice on appeal dated May 5, 1977.

WHEREFORE, respondent Clerk of Court is hereby admonished
to exercise closer supervision and greater vigilance over his subor­dinates in
the performance of their duties, with the warning that the commission of the
same or a similar irregularity in the future will be dealth with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., and Abad Santos, JJ., concur.

^[1]
In re:  Motion for Reconsideration of
Administrative Order No. 353, 60 SCRA 248.