854 Phil. 1
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Respondent Clerk of Court Dulfo ought to ensure that complainants receive the notices of hearing so as not to render inutile their right to have their day in court. Indeed, even assuming that she had prepared the notice of hearing and attached the same to the summons, still[,] she failed to exercise sufficient diligence to ascertain that Sheriff Albano expeditiously performed his duty to serve said court processes on complainants. As the officer of the court next in line to the Presiding Judge, it is incumbent upon respondent Clerk of Court Dulfo to regularly check not only the status of the cases, but also the prompt performance of functions by the other court personnel and employees under her supervision.[12] x x xThe OCA, however, absolved Judge Diasen from the administrative charges of gross negligence and gross ignorance of the law as his act of immediately rendering judgment due to the non-appearance of complainants was allowed under Section 18 of the Rule of Procedure in Small Claims Cases, as amended.[14] Nevertheless, the OCA found that Judge Diasen had failed to diligently discharge his judicial duties for "[h]ad he been more meticulous in examining the records, he could have been alerted by the lack of notice of hearing on the part of complainants and looked further into the matter."[15]
x x x x
As regards Sheriff Albano, he fell short of his mandate to diligently exert effort to serve the notice of hearing on complainants. Well aware that his initial attempts to serve the summons were unsuccessful, he should have been more assiduous in ascertaining that the notice of hearing and summons had been served as mandated under Section 10 of the [Rule] of Procedure for Small Claims Cases. His carelessness and incompetence betray his unconcern for the importance of court processes which he is expected to serve with utmost fidelity.[13] x x x
(1) the instant administrative complaint against Presiding Judge Marcos C. Diasen, Jr., Clerk of Court III Victoria E. Dulfo, and Sheriff III Ricardo R. Albano, all of Branch 62, Metropolitan Trial Court, Makati City, be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; (2) respondents Clerk of Court Dulfo and Sheriff Albano be found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and imposed a FINE in the amount of P5,000.00 each, payable within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice; (3) respondent Judge Diasen, Jr. be found GUILTY of violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars and imposed a FINE in the amount of P10,000.00, payable within thirty (30) days from receipt of notice; and (4) respondents Judge Diasen, Jr., Clerk of Court Dulfo and Sheriff Albano be STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offenses shall be dealt with more severely by the Court.[16]
The Clerk of Court has general administrative supervision over all the personnel of the Court. As regards the Court's funds and revenues, records, properties and premises, said officer is the custodian. Thus, the Clerk of Court is generally also the treasurer, accountant, guard and physical plant manager thereof. The law also requires the Clerk of Court, in most instances, to act as ex-officio Sheriff and ex-officio Notary Public. In all official matters, and in relation with other governmental agencies, the Clerk of Court is also usually the liaison officer.Thus, Dulfo, as Clerk of Court, was responsible for the preparation of court processes, including notices of hearing, and for seeing to it that all returns of notices were attached to the corresponding case records. On the other hand, Albano, as Sheriff, was responsible for the service of the notices and other court processes assigned by the judge and/or the clerk of court.[17]
As to specific functions, the Clerk of Court attends Court sessions (either personally or through deputies), takes charge of the administrative aspects of the Court's business and chronicles its will and directions. The Clerk of Court keeps the records and seal, issues processes, enters judgments and orders, and gives, upon request, certified copies from the records. (Emphasis supplied)
RULE 3.08 - A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel.It is settled that "[a] judge presiding over a branch of a court is, in legal contemplation, the head thereof having effective control and authority to discipline all employees within the branch."[24] Consequently, Judge Diasen shares accountability for the administrative lapses of Dulfo and Albano in this case. As the OCA observed, had Judge Diasen meticulously examined the records in Small Claims No. 12-3822, he could have been prompted by the lack of Notice of Hearing therein to look further into the matter.[25]
RULE 3.09 - A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity. (Emphasis supplied)
(1) | finds Clerk of Court III Victoria E. Dulfo and Sheriff III Ricardo R. Albano, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 62, Makati City, GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and imposes upon them the penalty of SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE for a period of two (2) months without pay, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely; and, |
(2) | finds Hon. Marcos C. Diasen, Jr., then Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 62, Makati City, GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and orders him to pay a FINE in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), the same to be deducted from his retirement benefits. |