Fonghe v. Bajarias-Cartilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Dr. Edwin Fonghe and Maharlika Canata filed an Affidavit-Complaint against respondent Cynthia Bajarias-Cartilla, Clerk of Court II of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Dalaguete, Cebu, for Infidelity in the Custody of Records, Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Neglect of Duty. The complaint stemmed from the alleged delay in the transmittal of records for three criminal cases filed by the complainants against Peter Bejarasco, Jr. Specifically, in Criminal Case No. R-4246, the accused appealed a conviction on July 29, 2002, but the records were not transmitted to the appellate court as of January 3, 2003. Respondent cited incomplete or missing records as the reason. Similarly, Criminal Case Nos. R-4187 and R-4188, submitted for decision since June 29, 1999, remained undecided, with the respondent attributing the delay to incomplete records. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) summarized the facts. Complainants suspected the respondent of deliberately concealing the records to delay the conviction of the accused, who is her nephew. They brought the matter to the attention of Judge Thelma N. delos Santos of MTC-Dalaguete, who directed the respondent to explain and search for the missing records. In her explanation, the respondent blamed a court stenographer for failing to submit transcripts. In her Comment to the OCA, the respondent reiterated that the delay in transmitting the records of Criminal Case No. R-4246 was due to duplicate or carbon copies of transcripts and the late submission of TSNs by the stenographer. She denied deliberately concealing the records of the other two cases, attributing the delay to discrepancies and the eventual completion of records upon receipt of a TSN on January 17, 2003. The Court Administrator found the respondent negligent for failing to transmit the records within the 5-day reglementary period and recommended a fine and admonition, noting the inefficient and disorderly system of keeping records. The Petition: The complainants filed an Affidavit-Complaint against the respondent for alleged Infidelity in the Custody of Records, Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct, and Neglect of Duty.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Clerk of Court was negligent in the performance of her duties regarding the transmittal of records, specifically concerning the failure to transmit the records of Criminal Case No. R-4246 within the prescribed period, and whether her reasons for the delay, such as the non-completion of transcripts, were tenable. Whether the respondent was accountable for the delay in the resolution of Criminal Case Nos. R-4187 and R-4188, including the failure to promptly verify the correctness and completeness of the records, and whether this reflects an inefficient record management system. Whether the respondent's actions, including the alleged deliberate concealment of records (though unsubstantiated), and the overall inefficiency in record-keeping, warrant disciplinary action, considering the vital role of the Clerk of Court in the judicial system.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the recommendation of the Court Administrator. Respondent Clerk of Court II Cynthia Bajarias-Cartilla was ordered to pay a fine of Three Thousand Pesos (₱3,000.00) for the delay in the transmittal of the records of a case to the appellate court. She was also admonished to be more diligent and circumspect in the performance of her duties, with a warning that repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of negligence in the transmittal of records: The Court found the respondent negligent for failing to transmit the records of Criminal Case No. R-4246 to the appellate court within the 5-day reglementary period after the accused filed his notice of appeal. The Court emphasized that compliance with this duty is strictly mandated, especially in criminal cases, as any unnecessary delay could violate the party litigant's right to due process. The respondent's excuse that certain transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) had not yet been completed or submitted was deemed untenable. The Court reiterated its ruling in Villanueva v. Pollentes, stating that the duty to transmit the complete record could not be excused by the non-completion of TSNs, as the TSN could be submitted later. The record itself, even with the original TSN, should have been transmitted within the reglementary period. On the issue of accountability for the delay in resolving Criminal Case Nos. R-4187 and R-4188: The Court affirmed the accountability of the respondent for her failure to promptly verify the correctness and completeness of the records of Criminal Case Nos. R-4187 and R-4188, which were in her custody. This failure contributed to the delay in the resolution of these cases, to the prejudice of the complainants. As Clerk of Court, it is incumbent upon her to ensure an orderly and efficient record management system and to supervise her personnel effectively. The Court stressed that officers involved in the dispensation of justice must conduct themselves above suspicion and perform their duties strictly. On the alleged deliberate concealment of records and the importance of the Clerk of Court's role: While the charge of deliberate concealment of records with respect to Criminal Case Nos. R-4187 and R-4188 was not substantiated, the belated discovery that the records were missing, incomplete, or incorrect, especially upon the prompting of the complainants, reflected an inefficient and disorderly system of keeping case records. This inefficiency, coupled with the delay in transmittal, warranted disciplinary action. The Court underscored the vital role of the Clerk of Court in the judicial system, performing delicate administrative functions essential for the prompt and proper administration of justice. Their conduct must always be beyond reproach, upholding the public trust character of their office and maintaining the people's faith in the Judiciary.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk of Court is accountable for the delay in the transmittal of records to the appellate court, and this duty cannot be excused by the mere fact that copies of the stenographic notes had not yet been made by the stenographers. The complete record, including the original stenographic notes, must be transmitted within the reglementary period.