Tecson v. Asuncion-Roxas
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Arnold G. Tengson was charged with violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Trece Martires City, Branch 23. A Hold-Departure Order was issued against him. He was convicted by the RTC on October 10, 2013, and received a copy of the decision on November 4, 2013. On the same date, he filed a Notice of Appeal. Procedural History: The complainant inquired about his appeal status with the Court of Appeals (CA) in October 2014, and was informed that the records had not yet been received. He then requested the respondent, Clerk of Court VI Atty. Maricel Lilled Asuncion-Roxas, to transmit the records, but the respondent failed to do so. The complainant claimed this prevented him from accepting an overseas employment offer. The respondent submitted a comment, attributing the delay to her heavy workload, the designation of an assisting judge, and the misplacement of transcripts by a subordinate clerk. The Petition: The complainant filed an administrative complaint for gross neglect of duty against the respondent. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the respondent be found guilty of gross neglect of duty and be fined P5,000.00.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent is guilty of gross neglect of duty for the delay in transmitting the records of Criminal Case No. TMCR-038-08 to the Court of Appeals. Whether the respondent's defenses of heavy workload and misplaced transcripts are sufficient to exculpate her from administrative liability.
Ruling
The Court finds respondent Atty. Maricel Lilled Asuncion-Roxas guilty of gross neglect of duty. The Court imposes a fine of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (₱15,000.00) payable within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross neglect of duty: The Court held that the duty of a clerk of court to transmit the complete record of a criminal case to the appellate court within five (5) days from the filing of the notice of appeal is mandatory under Section 8, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court. The respondent failed to transmit the records of Criminal Case No. TMCR-038-08 to the CA for over a year after the notice of appeal was filed. This unreasonable delay, amounting to one year and three months, unquestionably constitutes gross neglect of duty, especially considering that the case involved the complainant's right to appeal his conviction. Such delay deprives litigants of their right to a speedy disposition of their case and undermines public faith in the judiciary. On the respondent's defenses: The Court found the respondent's excuses of heavy workload and misplaced transcripts to be flimsy and insufficient to exculpate her from administrative liability. The Court reiterated that a heavy workload, while acknowledged, does not serve as a convenient excuse to evade administrative liability. If such an excuse were permitted, every government employee faced with negligence would resort to it, to the detriment of public service. The Court emphasized that court personnel are reminded to perform their assigned tasks promptly and with great care and diligence due to their important role in the administration of justice. The failure to transmit the records of a criminal case, thereby prolonging the accused's appeal, warrants a more severe penalty than that recommended by the OCA.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk of Court's failure to transmit the complete records of a criminal case to the appellate court within the reglementary period, despite the accused's filing of a notice of appeal, constitutes gross neglect of duty, as such delay unduly prolongs the appeal and undermines the right to a speedy disposition of cases and public faith in the judiciary. Excuses such as heavy workload are considered flimsy and insufficient to exculpate a court personnel from administrative liability.