Basco v. Gregorio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Victor Basco filed a sworn complaint against Atty. Damaso Gregorio, Clerk of Court V of RTC, Branch 41, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, for misconduct. Complainant alleged that a civil case (Civil Case No. 1091-92, "Basco v. Mirafles") submitted for decision on February 2, 1993, had not yet been decided due to the respondent allegedly losing some or all of the case records. Complainant also alleged observing the respondent to be drunk and tipsy during office hours. Procedural History: Respondent Gregorio filed a comment admitting his appointment as Commissioner but disputing the submission date of the case for decision, stating it would be considered submitted only after receipt of his Commissioner's Report. He claimed the case was terminated on January 12, 1993, and he was drafting his report when the carpeta was lost due to voluminous work and other cases. He stated efforts were made to reconstitute the records, which were eventually done. He vehemently denied being drunk during office hours, calling the allegation untrue. He also claimed the complainant never visited or spoke to him after the ex-parte proceedings. The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator. The Executive Judge's investigation report noted that the complainant's testimony during the investigation negated his claim of the respondent being drunk. However, the report found the respondent negligent in safeguarding court records, noting he did not mention diligent efforts to search for the lost records, only that they were reconstituted. The Investigating Judge recommended severe admonishment and a fine of P2,000.00 for gross negligence. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended the same. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and findings, finding respondent Atty. Damaso Gregorio guilty of the charge.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Damaso Gregorio was guilty of misconduct for losing court records and negligence in the performance of his duties as Clerk of Court. Whether respondent Atty. Damaso Gregorio was guilty of misconduct for allegedly being drunk during office hours.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Damaso Gregorio guilty of the charge against him. He was ordered to pay a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and was admonished to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties as a clerk of court, with a stern warning against repetition of similar infractions.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of misconduct and negligence in safekeeping records: The Court found respondent Gregorio guilty of negligence in the performance of his duties. It emphasized the vital role of a clerk of court in the prompt and proper administration of justice, citing Rule 136, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, which mandates the clerk to safely keep all records, papers, files, exhibits, and public property committed to his charge. The Court noted that respondent failed to discharge these duties with due diligence, as evidenced by the loss of the records. His assertion that the records were reconstituted was insufficient to absolve him of the initial negligence. The Court stressed that as custodian of court records, the clerk must be diligent and vigilant. The respondent's administrative functions are as essential as adjudicative ones for the proper administration of justice. The Court reiterated that court employees are held to exacting standards of ethics and morality, and their conduct must be above suspicion, serving as examples of integrity, probity, uprightness, honesty, and diligence. The respondent could not exempt himself from these rigorous standards. On the issue of being drunk during office hours: The Court agreed with the Investigating Judge that the complainant's own testimony during the investigation negated his claim that the respondent was observed to be drunk and somewhat tipsy during office hours. The complainant's statement that the respondent's demeanor was "Ayos naman po siya" (He was fine) contradicted his earlier allegation in the complaint.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk of Court is an essential officer in the judicial system, responsible for the safekeeping of all records, papers, files, exhibits, and public property committed to his charge. Failure to discharge these duties with due diligence constitutes negligence and warrants disciplinary action, including fines and admonition.