Re: Report On The Judicial Audit Conducted In The Regional Trial Court, Branches 87 And 98, Quezon City
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted a judicial audit and physical inventory of pending cases in Branches 87 and 98 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City from September 15 to 17, 1999. For Branch 87, the audit team reported that the Presiding Judge retired with some undecided cases but within the reglementary period. However, in Branch 98, presided over by Judge Justo M. Sultan, the audit team found thirty-five (35) cases submitted for decision that were beyond the prescribed period. Procedural History: This Court, in a Decision promulgated on August 16, 2000, found Judge Justo M. Sultan administratively liable and fined him P20,000.00 for failure to decide the 35 cases within the prescribed period and to submit the required periodic inventory of cases. The administrative liability of Atty. Reynaldo M. Elcano, the branch clerk of court of Branch 98, was not passed upon in that decision. Earlier, on June 7, 2000, this Court directed Atty. Elcano to explain why the 35 cases were reported only in the Monthly Report of Cases for September and October 1999. Atty. Elcano explained that the cases were found in Judge Sultan's chambers during the audit and that as a subordinate, he complied with the judge's wish. The OCA evaluated this explanation and found Atty. Elcano administratively liable for failing to satisfactorily explain the delay in reporting the cases. The OCA recommended a fine of P5,000.00. The Petition: This Court reviewed the OCA's report and recommendation regarding the administrative liability of Atty. Elcano.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Reynaldo M. Elcano, as Branch Clerk of Court, is administratively liable for his failure to report cases submitted for decision that remained undecided beyond the reglementary period. Whether Atty. Elcano violated Section 7, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court regarding the safekeeping of records.
Ruling
The Court found Atty. Reynaldo M. Elcano administratively liable for inefficiency and imposed a fine of P5,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the failure to report cases submitted for decision: The Court held that Atty. Elcano violated this Court's Circular No. 25-92, which mandates that all cases submitted for decision but remain undecided at the end of the month, whether inherited or current, must be duly reported. His explanation that the cases were only found during the audit and were kept in the judge's chambers was deemed a "lame excuse." The Court noted that 19 of the subject cases were in Atty. Elcano's possession, and there was no reason why they should not have been included in the monthly reports prior to September and October 1999. Erroneous statistical accomplishment of the monthly report is equivalent to submitting inaccurate reports and is a ground for disciplinary action against the clerk of court. The Court reiterated the ruling in Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Naga City, emphasizing that clerks of court are responsible for accurately accomplishing SC Form No. 01. On the safekeeping of records: The Court found that Atty. Elcano contravened Sections 7 and 14 of Rule 136 of the Revised Rules of Court. Section 7 mandates that the Clerk shall safely keep all records, papers, files, exhibits, and public property committed to his charge. Atty. Elcano's act of not keeping the records in his office and allowing them to be kept in the judge's chambers without any written proof, such as a receipt, showing they were properly taken from his custody, violates this provision. The Court cited Re: Report on the Judicial Audit, RTC Brs. 4 and 23, Manila, which held that a branch clerk of court violates Section 7 of Rule 136 by not keeping records or allowing them to be kept in the judge's chambers without proper documentation. As Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Elcano's duties include conducting periodic docket inventory and ensuring that records are accounted for, playing a vital role in the efficient management of court records.
Main Doctrine
A Branch Clerk of Court is administratively liable for inefficiency for failure to report cases submitted for decision but remain undecided beyond the reglementary period, and for failing to properly account for and safeguard court records.