Makasiar v. Gomintong
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Marcial Galahad T. Makasiar, Clerk of Court V, charged respondent Fe L. Gomintong, Clerk III, both of RTC Quezon City, Branch 89, with gross neglect of duty. The charge stemmed from the loss of the transcript of stenographic notes (TSNs) in Civil Case No. Q-01-43766, "Jun-Jun Conol v. Lelita Conol." The records were supposed to be transmitted to the Court of Appeals following a decision declaring the nullity of marriage. The TSNs were discovered missing when the complainant inquired about the transmittal of records on March 3, 2003. It was revealed that the respondent knew the TSNs were missing as early as the first week of February 2003 but did not report it. The respondent also admitted that the TSNs were not placed in a separate folder despite instructions and available supplies. Procedural History: The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Notice of Appeal on January 7, 2003. The trial court issued an order for the elevation of the records on January 28, 2003. A motion for remarking of exhibits was granted on February 6, 2003, and the Clerk of Court V was ordered to effect the remarking. The complainant filed the instant complaint on March 11, 2003. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed the respondent to file her comment by Indorsement dated March 19, 2003. The complainant later filed a request for withdrawal of his complaint, received by the OCA on March 20, 2003, citing compassion as the TSNs had been re-transcribed. In her Comment filed on May 19, 2003, the respondent stated she discovered the missing TSNs on February 19, 2003, informed the complainant, and suggested re-transcription, which he declined. She also claimed a shortage of folders made compliance with separate filing impossible and suggested the loss occurred during exhibit remarking. The OCA, in its Report dated September 24, 2003, found the loss unintentional but noted the respondent was remiss in her duties, as was the complainant in his supervisory duties, leading to an inefficient record system. The OCA recommended reprimand for the respondent and advice for the complainant to exercise closer supervision. By Resolution dated November 10, 2003, the Supreme Court required the parties to manifest if they were submitting the case for resolution. The complainant complied, but the respondent did not file a manifestation or comment, despite requesting extensions. The Appeal: The Supreme Court finds the findings of the OCA well-taken. The respondent's failure to maintain a systematic filing of TSNs constitutes a failure to faithfully discharge her functions as a Clerk III. Her explanations regarding folder shortage do not mitigate her responsibility. The loss of TSNs caused delay and compromised public faith in the judiciary. Respondent is liable for simple neglect of duty. The complainant, as Clerk of Court and administrative officer, is also responsible for safe record keeping and supervision. The Court reminds Clerks of Court to exercise closer supervision to avoid similar incidents. Respondent Fe L. Gomintong is found guilty of simple neglect of duty and suspended for one (1) month and one (1) day, with a stern warning.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Fe L. Gomintong is guilty of neglect of duty regarding the loss of the TSNs. Whether complainant Marcial Galahad T. Makasiar is also liable for the loss of the TSNs due to his role as Clerk of Court and administrative officer.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Fe L. Gomintong guilty of simple neglect of duty and suspended her for one (1) month and one (1) day, with a stern warning. The Court also advised complainant Atty. Marcial Galahad T. Makasiar to exercise closer supervision over his personnel.
Ratio Decidendi
On the liability of respondent Fe L. Gomintong: The Court held that respondent Fe L. Gomintong was guilty of simple neglect of duty. As Clerk III, her function includes maintaining a systematic filing of cases. The loss of the TSNs, for which she was responsible for filing and custody, demonstrated her failure to faithfully discharge her duties. Her explanation regarding the shortage of folders and other supplies, even if true, did not mitigate her responsibility for the loss. The re-transcription of the TSNs did not absolve her, as the loss caused wasted manpower, delayed the disposition of the case, and eroded public faith in the judiciary. Her suggestion that the loss occurred during the remarking of exhibits lacked specific details to merit consideration. Therefore, she was found liable for simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense. On the liability of complainant Atty. Marcial Galahad T. Makasiar: The Court found that the complainant was not without blame. As Clerk of Court and custodian of judicial records, it is his duty to safely keep all records and ensure an orderly and efficient record management system. Furthermore, as the administrative officer, he is tasked with supervising subordinate personnel to ensure they perform their duties well. The loss of the TSNs reflected an inefficient and disorderly system of keeping case records and a lack of close supervision by the complainant over his subordinate personnel. Consequently, the Court advised the complainant to exercise closer supervision to avoid similar incidents.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk III is responsible for maintaining a systematic filing of cases, and the loss of transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) constitutes a failure to faithfully discharge such functions, amounting to simple neglect of duty. While a Branch Clerk of Court has supervisory duties, the loss of records also reflects on their own duty to ensure an efficient record management system and proper supervision of subordinates.