Bandong v. Ching
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Executive Judge Henry B. Basilla directed Atty. Jesus N. Bandong, Clerk of Court VI, to inventory cases from 1985 to 1995 lacking minutes of court sessions or proceedings. Atty. Bandong's report listed 67 criminal and 11 civil cases with missing minutes prepared by the Court Interpreter, respondent Bella R. Ching, covering 281 sessions. He recommended withholding Ching's salary. Procedural History: Judge Basilla forwarded the report to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), recommending a fine and salary withholding for Ching. The Supreme Court treated the report as a complaint, directed Ching to answer, and ordered the withholding of her salaries until the minutes were submitted. Ching alleged she had already prepared and submitted all minutes, with certifications from Atty. Bandong and Judge Basilla. She also claimed some minutes should have been prepared by an interpreter-designate during her leave, and others were wrongly attached by a Court Aide. The Petition: The OCA recommended that Ching be found guilty of simple neglect of duty, proposing a fine of P3,000.00 and the release of her withheld salaries, considering mitigating circumstances. The Supreme Court, however, found the neglect to be habitual and prolonged, suggesting a graver penalty. It also required Atty. Bandong to show cause why he should not be disciplined for failure to supervise Ching.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Bella R. Ching was guilty of neglect of duty for failing to prepare and attach minutes of court sessions and proceedings. Whether the Clerk of Court, Atty. Jesus N. Bandong, was also liable for neglect of duty for failing to supervise the respondent.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Bella R. Ching guilty of neglect of duty and suspended her for one month without pay. The Court also required Atty. Jesus N. Bandong to show cause why he should not be disciplined for neglect of duty.
Ratio Decidendi
On the neglect of duty by respondent Bella R. Ching: The Court found the neglect of duty by respondent Ching to be too apparent. The fact that it spanned a period of ten years indicated that it was habitual and not merely simple neglect of duty. The Court rejected Ching's claims that minutes during her leave should have been prepared by an interpreter-designate, deeming this self-serving and contradicted by her own assertion that all minutes were accomplished. The Court emphasized that preparing minutes is a fundamental duty of a court interpreter, a crucial document summarizing court proceedings. The respondent's failure to take her duty seriously demonstrated a lack of dedication and a disregard for the public trust inherent in her position. The Court reiterated that all those involved in the administration of justice must adhere to the norm of public accountability. On the liability of the Clerk of Court, Atty. Jesus N. Bandong: The Court noted that if Ching's neglect went unnoticed for over ten years, her immediate superior, the Clerk of Court, must explain his failure to supervise her. Clerks of court are administrative officers with control and supervision over court records and subordinates. Therefore, Atty. Bandong was required to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for his neglect of duty in failing to ensure the proper performance of Ching's functions.
Main Doctrine
A court interpreter's failure to prepare and attach minutes of court sessions and proceedings over a prolonged period constitutes neglect of duty, warranting disciplinary action. The Clerk of Court also has a duty to supervise subordinates and ensure the proper performance of their functions.