FORMER PRESIDING JUDGE EMILY R. ALIÑO-GELUZ, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), BRANCH 255, LAS PIÑAS CITY, NOW ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS, COMPLAINANT, VS. PHILIP O. LAGAC, C…

Aliño-Geluz versus Lagac

The Case

This is an administrative case in which a former presiding judge, now an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, charges a Clerk III of a regional trial court branch with gross neglect of duty, insubordination, and inefficiency. The complainant, Judge Emily R. Aliño-Geluz, had been designated acting presiding judge of the branch where the respondent, Philip O. Lagac, served as clerk-in-charge of criminal cases. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement of how the further amended Rule 140 governs pending disciplinary cases, how gross insubordination and gross neglect of duty are defined for judicial personnel, and how separate penalties are imposed for separate offenses in a single administrative proceeding.

Procedural History

The complainant filed a verified Affidavit-Complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator, which referred the matter for evaluation. Despite several directives from the Office of the Court Administrator and from the Court itself to file his comment, the respondent never did. The Court then referred the complaint to the Judicial Integrity Board for evaluation, report, and recommendation. The Board's Office of the Executive Director recommended that the complaint be redocketed as a regular administrative matter and that the respondent be adjudged guilty of gross neglect of duty and gross insubordination, with the penalty of dismissal and all accessory penalties. The Judicial Integrity Board, in its own Report, adopted the factual findings and the recommendation. The case then came before the Supreme Court as a regular administrative matter, and the Court resolved it under the framework of the further amended Rule 140.

Facts

By Administrative Order dated May 23, 2016, Judge Aliño-Geluz was designated acting presiding judge of the regional trial court branch in Trece Martires City, Cavite. In the performance of her duties, she noticed that the main reason for delay in the criminal cases was the respondent's negligence in serving subpoenas, orders, and other court processes upon witnesses and litigants. She directed the respondent, who was designated clerk-in-charge of criminal cases, and the branch Clerk of Court to give importance to their duties. The directive went unheeded.

The branch Clerk of Court had, even before the judge's reminder, already issued several Memoranda to the respondent, to no avail. His attention was called to his failure to maintain a systematic filing of records in criminal cases, to obey the directive for the issuance of subpoenas, which resulted in the resetting of cases, to attach bail bond documents to the records, and to produce the records of cases involving detention prisoners. His habitual tardiness and absences compounded the backlog. An Assisting Judge also issued a Memorandum directing him to show cause why he should not be administratively charged for failure to attach the Information and its enclosures in several criminal cases. Despite all the reminders, he remained remiss.

The complainant alleged that his gross negligence, inefficiency, and insubordination prevented a more expeditious administration of justice and clogged the docket of the branch. Summoned repeatedly by the Office of the Court Administrator and by the Court to comment, the respondent filed nothing.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent should be held administratively liable for gross insubordination for repeatedly disregarding the directives of the Office of the Court Administrator and of the Court to file his comment.
• Whether or not the respondent's silence may be construed as an implied admission of the allegations against him, and whether or not his acts and omissions amount to gross neglect of duty.
• Whether or not the respondent should be penalized separately for each of the two serious charges, and what penalties should be imposed.

Applicable Provisions

Section 24 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as further amended, provides:

SECTION 24. Retroactive Effect. – All the foregoing provisions shall be applied to all pending and future administrative cases involving the discipline of Members, officials, employees, and personnel of the Judiciary, without prejudice to the internal rules of the Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards of the Supreme Court insofar as complaints against Members of the Supreme Court are concerned.

This provision is the reason the Court resolves the case under the further amended Rule 140, which took effect upon publication, even though the complaint was filed earlier.

Section 21 of Rule 140 provides:

If the respondent is found liable for more than one offense arising from separate acts or omissions in a single administrative proceeding, the Court shall impose separate penalties for each offense.

This provision requires a distinct penalty for each charge, since the two liabilities arise from separate acts.

Section 17(1) of Rule 140 lists the sanctions for serious charges, thus:

(a) Dismissal from service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Supreme Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; (b) Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than six months but not exceeding one year; or (c) A fine of more than 100,000 pesos but not exceeding 200,000 pesos.

These are the penalties from which the Court chose the sanctions for each offense.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that gross insubordination is the inexplicable and unjustified refusal to obey some order that a superior is entitled to give and have obeyed, importing a willful or intentional disregard of the lawful and reasonable instructions of the superior. Repeated noncompliance with the Office of the Court Administrator's directive to furnish a comment may be construed as gross insubordination, a clear and willful disrespect not just for that Office but for the Court, which exercises direct administrative supervision over all lower courts and personnel through it. Quoting its ruling in Martinez versus Zoleta, the Court said:

A resolution of the Supreme Court requiring comment on an administrative complaint against officials and employees of the judiciary should not be construed as a mere request from the Court. Nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. Respondents in administrative complaints should comment on all accusations or allegations against them in the administrative complaints because it is their duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary.

Since the respondent was given several opportunities to comment and continued to disregard the directives, he is liable for gross insubordination.

On the second issue, the Court held that his acts constituting gross insubordination should be deemed a waiver of his right to defend himself. His patent indifference is grossly inconsistent with the actions of a person against whom a false accusation has been made, and silence is admission if there was a chance to deny the charges. His silence is therefore an implied admission of the veracity of the allegations, including that he was remiss in maintaining a systematic filing of records and in issuing subpoenas, delaying the proceedings and clogging the docket. Gross neglect of duty, or gross negligence, is negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by willfully and intentionally acting or omitting to act where there is a duty to act, with a conscious indifference to the consequences. In cases involving public officials, gross negligence occurs when the breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. As clerk-in-charge of criminal cases, he had the duty to maintain a systematic filing of criminal cases, prepare subpoenas and processes for signature, and assist in their release. Despite repeated reminders, he remained indifferent, and his omissions bespeak a flagrant and culpable refusal to perform his duty.

On the third issue, the Court held that gross neglect of duty and gross insubordination are serious charges under Rule 140, and since the liabilities stem from separate acts, he must be separately penalized for each charge. It imposed dismissal from the service with all accessory penalties for gross neglect of duty, and a fine of 101,000 pesos for gross insubordination, payable within three months from promulgation.

Doctrine

First, under Section 24 of the further amended Rule 140, the amended rules apply to all pending and future administrative disciplinary cases involving judiciary personnel, so a pending case is resolved under the amended framework. Second, gross insubordination is the inexplicable and unjustified refusal to obey a lawful order of a superior, and repeated noncompliance with the Court's or the Office of the Court Administrator's directive to comment on an administrative complaint constitutes gross insubordination. Third, such defiance is a waiver of the right to defend and an implied admission of the allegations, which may support a finding of gross neglect of duty, defined as a flagrant and palpable breach of duty marked by a conscious indifference to consequences. Fourth, under Section 21 of Rule 140, a respondent found liable for more than one offense arising from separate acts in a single proceeding must be penalized separately for each offense, within the sanctions of Section 17(1).

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of gross neglect of duty and gross insubordination, dismissed him from the service with forfeiture of all retirement and other benefits except accrued leave credits and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, and fined him 101,000 pesos.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a court employee's repeated refusal to obey the Court's directive to comment is gross insubordination, a waiver of the right to defend, and an implied admission of the charges. Examiners use this case for the retroactive application of the further amended Rule 140 and for the rule of separate penalties for separate offenses in one administrative proceeding.