Santos v. Arlegui-Hernandez
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Norma Santos filed a sworn letter-complaint against Joyce Trinidad Arlegui-Hernandez, Clerk of Court of the Metropolitan Trial Court of San Juan, Branch 58, and Atty. Marlon B. Llauder, a private practitioner. The complaint alleged that Arlegui-Hernandez intercalated a certificate of non-forum shopping into the court records of an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 7888) after the complaint had already been filed and served, and after the complainant had raised the lack of such certification in her Answer. The complainant asserted that this act was done to make it appear that the certification was attached to the original complaint when it was not. 2. Procedural History: The ejectment case was initially decided in favor of the plaintiff, Dr. Jose Antonio Baun. The complainant appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 153, which affirmed the Metropolitan Trial Court's decision. A Petition for Review was then filed with the Court of Appeals. It was during the process of securing documents for this appeal that the complainant discovered the allegedly interpolated certificate of non-forum shopping. The administrative complaint was subsequently filed with the Supreme Court. The case was referred to various Regional Trial Court judges for investigation, and the complaint against Atty. Llauder was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. Executive Judge Rodolfo R. Bonifacio submitted a report finding respondent Hernandez guilty of negligence, recommending a reprimand. The Office of the Court Administrator affirmed the findings but imposed an additional fine. 3. The Petition: This resolution addresses the administrative complaint filed by Norma Santos against Joyce Trinidad Arlegui-Hernandez. The core of the petition is the allegation that respondent Hernandez, as Clerk of Court, committed grave misconduct by allowing the insertion of a certificate of non-forum shopping into the court records after the complaint had been filed and served, and after the complainant had raised the absence of this certification as an issue. The Supreme Court, in its resolution, found that the certification was notarized after the complaint was filed and that its subsequent appearance in the records, without proper dating and stamping of receipt, indicated a violation of the clerk of court's duty to maintain the authenticity and correctness of court records. The Court determined that the penalties recommended by the lower bodies were too light and ordered the suspension of respondent Arlegui-Hernandez for one year for grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Joyce Trinidad Arlegui-Hernandez, Clerk of Court, committed grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service by allowing the intercalation of a Certification of Non-Forum Shopping into the court records. Whether the penalty recommended by the investigating judge and the Court Administrator is commensurate with the offense committed.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Joyce Trinidad Arlegui-Hernandez guilty of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. She is ordered suspended for one (1) year with a stern warning that a repetition of a similar act will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service: The Court reiterated that all individuals connected with the dispensation of justice, including clerks of court, are bound by a heavy burden of responsibility and must adhere to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity. Clerks of court, in particular, are imbued with the mandate of safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings, maintaining the authenticity and correctness of court records, and upholding public confidence in the administration of justice. One of the specific duties of a clerk of court is the safekeeping of court records, requiring due diligence, efficiency, and professionalism. The evidence showed that the complaint was filed on May 27, 1994, without an appended certification of non-forum shopping, as required by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 04-94. The complainant, Norma Santos, received the summons and complaint on June 7, 1994, and correctly noted the absence of this certification, raising it in her Answer. The fact that this issue was raised in the Answer strongly indicates that the certification was indeed missing at the time of filing. Later, during the appeal to the Court of Appeals, Santos discovered the certification in the records. This certification was notarized on June 8, 1994, thirteen days after the complaint was filed and a day after Santos received the summons and complaint. The absence of the "RECEIVED" stamp and the date of receipt by the clerk of court, coupled with the notarization date, clearly indicated that the certification was appended to the records after the complaint was filed and after the defendants had already received their copies. As the clerk of court responsible for the safekeeping of records, respondent Hernandez was found to be a party to this malfeasance, whether wittingly or unwittingly, through sheer negligence. Atty. Marlon B. Llauder, counsel for the plaintiff, testified that he brought the certification to respondent Hernandez after the complaint was filed, and she received it without stamping it "RECEIVED." The testimony of Atty. Llauder before the Court of Appeals confirmed that the certification was not simultaneously filed with the complaint but came two or three days later, and was received by the Branch Clerk of Court without an indication of the date of receipt. This act of allowing the insertion of the certification to make it appear it was part of the records at the time of filing is a clear violation of her duty to maintain the authenticity and correctness of court records and Section 3, Rule 13 of the Revised Rules of Court, which mandates that the clerk of court shall endorse the date and hour of filing on pleadings presented personally. On the issue of the penalty: The Court found the penalties recommended by the investigating judge (reprimand with warning) and the Court Administrator (reprimand with a fine of ₱5,000.00) to be too light and incommensurate with the gravity of the offense. Dishonesty constitutes grave misconduct, which carries the extreme penalty of dismissal from service upon first offense. Citing the case of Judge Enrique Almario vs. Jameswell Resus and Nora Saclolo, where a branch clerk of court and a stenographic reporter were dismissed for grave misconduct in preparing a TSN in advance and inserting it into the records, the Court emphasized that such acts compromise and undermine public faith in court records and the integrity of the Judiciary. Therefore, for committing grave misconduct by inserting the certification and making it appear it was part of the records at the time of filing, respondent Hernandez deserved a similar penalty. However, the Court imposed a suspension of one (1) year.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk of Court is duty-bound to maintain the authenticity and correctness of court records. Allowing the insertion of documents into the records to make it appear they were filed at an earlier date constitutes grave misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, warranting suspension.