351 Phil. 936
PURISIMA, J.:
Administrative
Complaint for gross negligence, grave misconduct, manifest bias and partiality,
lodged by Solidbank Corporation thru counsel, Atty. George S. Briones, against
Clerk of Court Roberto B. Capoon, Jr. and Clerk for Civil Cases Virginia
Tabirao of Branch 62 of the Regional Trial Court, Makati City, in connection
with the dismissal for failure to prosecute of Civil Case No. 92-021, entitled
“Solidbank Corporation vs. Ballistics Armoring Corporation Philippines, R.
Keith Ogden, Jr., and American Home Assurance Company,” for Sum of Money.
Complainant
contends that the said respondents are administratively liable for failing to
furnish its lawyer with a copy of the court Order dated August 6, 1993,
dismissing the aforesaid Civil Case No. 92-021 for failure to prosecute. According to complainant, by reason of the
nonfeasance complained of, it failed to
avail of remedies to protect its interest and as a result, it suffered great
and irreparable damage. Further,
complainant theorizes that as it was
the only party not given a copy of subject order of dismissal, respondents
patently acted with bias and partiality in favor of the adverse parties
(defendants).
Records show
that from the day of filing of Civil Case No. 92-021, on January 6, 1992, to
December 7, 1992, the defendants in said case were granted several extensions
of time to file their answer or motion to dismiss.[1] On February 21, 1994 or more than a
year after the filing of the last pleading, Solidbank filed an “Ex Parte Motion
to Declare Defendants in default” and on February 24, 1994, its lawyer, Atty.
George S. Briones, went to personally verify the status of his said motion, and he learned for the
first time, that Civil Case No. 92-021 was dismissed by the trial court on August 6, 1993. The dispositive portion of the Order of Dismissal was to the
following effect:
“Wherefore, for failure of plaintiff Solidbank Corporation, third-party plaintiff American Home Assurance Company to prosecute its Complaint and crossclaim respectively within the reasonable length of time, the Complaint, cross claim, and third-party Complaint are all dismissed.
SO ORDERED.”[2]
Records of said civil case showed that only Atty. Michael Angelo G.
Paderanga, counsel for defendants Ballistic Armory Corporation and R. Keith
Ogden, Jr., and Atty. T. J. Sumawang, counsel for defendant American Home
Assurance Corporation, were served and notified of the Order in question. Plaintiff Solidbank, the herein
complainant, was never notified thereof. When Atty. Briones asked why his client was not sent a copy of the said
Order of dismissal dated August 6, 1993, respondent Virginia Tabirao said “ginaya
ko lang ho yung ginawa noong dating in-charge sa civil cases kasi bago pa lang
ako.”
In view of what
he discovered, Atty. Briones lost no time in bringing the matter to the
attention of Presiding Judge Roberto C. Diokno, who told him to present a
motion for reconsideration and to reiterate in such pleading, by way of Omnibus
Motion, his motion to declare the defendants in default. But on July 12, 1994, the same Court
presided over by Judge Diokno issued an Order[3] ruling out the reinstatement of the
Complaint in Civil Case No. 92-021 and considering the motion to declare the defendants
in default moot and academic.
Complaining of
great and irreparable damage caused by alleged negligence, bias, incompetence,
and inefficiency of respondents, complainant Solidbank seeks respondents’
dismissal from the service.
In his Comment
dated September 26, 1995, the respondent Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Roberto
B. Capoon, Jr., explained that he never failed to instruct his subordinates
what to do and if ever there were some mistakes or delays, it must have been due to the heavy caseload
of the court. This respondent stressed
that the long delay of service of the Order of dismissal in said civil
case did not cause great damage to the
complainant because its complaint was dismissed on the ground of failure to
prosecute, and it had a chance to move for reconsideration and to appeal should
its motion for reconsideration be denied.
Respondent Clerk
of Civil Cases Virginia Tabirao, who
sent in her separate Comment on September 20, 1995, laid the blame on her
assistant, a casual employee, who was
tasked to mail the court notices including the notice of subject Order dated
August 6, 1993. She reasoned out that while she was preoccupied with the
inventory of pending civil cases, she adopted a good filing system so much so
that, on February 24, 1994 she was able to show to Atty. Briones the records of
Civil Case No. 92-021.
On May 3, 1995,
this administrative case was referred to the Court Administrator, for evaluation, report and
recommendation. And on February 18,
1996, the Court Administrator submitted
the corresponding Report/Memorandum, finding both respondents, Virginia Tabirao
and Atty. Roberto Capoon, Jr., guilty
of gross negligence and partiality, and recommending the imposition of a fine
of P500.00 on the former and reprimand for both respondents.
From the records
on hand, it can be gleaned that while
notice of the Order of Dismissal dated August 6, 1993 was not served on the plaintiff, Solidbank Corporation, within a reasonable
time, the lawyers of the defendants in subject Civil Case No. 92-021 were duly
notified without undue delay.
The
administration of justice is a sacred and delicate task. Any act or omission tending to erode the
faith of the people in the judiciary cannot be countenanced. It must be punished with severity because
those “involved in the administration of justice ... must live up to the
strictest standard of honesty and integrity in the public service.”[4] Their conduct must at all times,
not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but must also be above suspicion.[5] Respondents’ failure to furnish the
plaintiff with a copy of the Order of dismissal in Civil Case No. 92-021 did
not meet such standard.
That the Complaint in Civil Case No. 92-021 was
dismissed for failure to prosecute is of no moment. Whether its dismissal was warranted or not does not matter in
this case. The pivot of inquiry here is
whether or not respondents are guilty of dereliction of duty, as charged? More simply stated, the curcial question is
- did respondents perform their duty, as expected of them under the
premises? It bears stressing that it
is doctrinally entrenched that public
officers are accountable for their actuations, at all times, and must perform
their duties well.
The Clerk of
Court is certainly an important functionary of the judiciary. His administrative functions[6] are vital to prompt and sound
administration of justice. He plays a
key role in the court. He cannot be
allowed to slacken on his job as his office is the hub of adjudicative and
administrative orders, processes and concerns. When the respondent, Atty. Roberto Capoon, Jr., assumed the position of Branch Clerk of
Court, it was of course understood that he was willing, ready and able to do
his job with utmost devotion and efficiency. Consequently, his reason of being too busy to cause prompt notices and
service of orders in all the cases before him, is unavailing as a defense. As custodian of judicial records, it was his duty to see to it that court orders were sent to the litigants,[7] with dispatch.
Neither are we
impressed with respondent Virginia Tabirao’s explanation. Time and again, this Court has stressed that “The conduct and behavior
of everyone connected with the dispensation of justice from the presiding judge
to the lowest clerk should be circumscribed with heavy burden of
responsibility.[8] Court officials and employees have
the bounden duty to judiciously perform their functions and take steps to
improve the system of filing, recording and transmitting of pleadings and court
processes to ensure efficient and speedy workflow.[9] Thus, for her failure to check and
closely supervise the work of the casual clerk under her, respondent Virginia
Tabirao is answerable. Obviously, her
negligence sued upon was glaring considering that the court Order involved
wrote finis to the litigation.
WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Court
Administrator, a fine of Five Hundred (P500.00) Pesos, payable within
fifteen (15) days from notice, is hereby imposed on respondent Virginia Tabirao, Clerk of Civil Cases of
Branch 62, Regional Trial Court of Makati City, for neglect of duty and conduct
prejudicial to the service.
Both
respondents, Virginia Tabirao and Atty.
Roberto B. Capoon, Jr., are REPRIMANDED, and hereby warned that a repetition of a similar act or omission will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
[1] See Annexes “C to P,” pp. 52-80, Rollo.
[2] See Complaint, pp. 13-14, Rollo.
[3] See Complaint, pp. 13-14, Rollo.
[4] Mejia vs. Pamaran, 160 SCRA 457.
[5] Llanes vs. Borja, 192 SCRA 288.
[6] Sec. 5, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court provides that
“in the absence of the judge, the clerk may perform all the duties of the judge
in receiving applications, petitions, inventories, reports all orders and
notices that follow as a matter of course under these rules, and may also, when
directed so to do by the judge, receive the accounts of executors,
administrators, guardians, trustees, and receivers, and all evidence relating
to them, or to the settlement of the estates of deceased persons, or to
guardianships, trusteeships, or receiverships, and forthwith transmit such
reports, accounts and evidence to the judge, together with his findings in
relation to the same, if the judge shall direct him to make findings and
include the same in his report.
[7] Sec. 4, Rule 13 of the 1997 Civil Procedure provides
that “every judgment, resolution, order, pleading subsequent to the
complaint... shall be filed with the court, and served upon the parties
affected”; Sec. 5, Rule 136, Rules of Court.
[8] Tan vs. Herras, 195 SCRA 1.
[9] Juntenilla vs. Branch COC Teresita J. Calleja,
et al., P-96-1225 (OCA IPI No. 95-96 P), September 23, 1996.