Cabas v. Sususco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Marita Cabas, an indigent, filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against Mauricio Valdez before the City Prosecutor's Office of Olongapo City. Cabas alleged they were falsely accused of Estafa by Valdez and were subsequently acquitted. Cabas filed several Ex Parte Urgent Motions to Resolve the Case on May 21, June 3, and June 23, 2010. On July 1, 2010, Cabas received a Resolution dated March 28, 2010, dismissing her complaint. Procedural History: Cabas accused respondents Atty. Ria Nina L. Sususco and Prosecutor Emilie Fe Delos Santos of dereliction of duty and violation of R.A. No. 6033 for their failure to promptly decide the criminal case she filed, despite availing of benefits for indigents under R.A. No. 6033, which mandates resolution within two weeks. The Supreme Court referred the case to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP-CBD found Pros. Delos Santos guilty of dereliction of duty and recommended a reprimand, but dismissed the charges against Atty. Sususco. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this recommendation. Pros. Delos Santos moved for reconsideration, explaining her heavy workload and citing a certification of 856 cases received by the office from January to June 2010. The IBP Board of Governors granted her motion, reversing the previous resolution and reducing the penalty to a stern warning. The Petition: Cabas filed an Administrative Complaint against Atty. Sususco and Pros. Delos Santos for gross dereliction of duty and violation of R.A. No. 6033.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Ria Nina L. Sususco and Prosecutor Emilie Fe Delos Santos are administratively liable for gross dereliction of duty and violation of Republic Act No. 6033 for the delay in resolving the malicious prosecution complaint filed by Marita Cabas.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolution of the IBP-Board of Governors, adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner. The charges against Atty. Ria Nina L. Sususco were dismissed for lack of merit. The Court also affirmed the reversal of the IBP Board of Governors' Resolution regarding Prosecutor Emilie Fe Delos Santos, thus dismissing the charges against her. However, Prosecutor Emilie Fe Delos Santos was sternly warned to be circumspect in the performance of her duties, with a repetition of similar acts to be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the administrative liability of Atty. Ria Nina L. Sususco and Prosecutor Emilie Fe Delos Santos for gross dereliction of duty and violation of Republic Act No. 6033: The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the IBP-Board of Governors, holding that there was no sufficient, clear, and convincing evidence to find either respondent administratively liable for gross neglect of duty. Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence requires the want of even slight care, or acting or omitting to act willfully and intentionally with a conscious indifference to consequences, demonstrating a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform a duty. In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence, which is the amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, and the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations. Regarding Atty. Sususco, the Court found that she discharged her duties with promptness, submitting her Resolution recommending dismissal only 19 days after the case was assigned to her on March 9, 2010, thereby providing reasonable explanation for any initial delay. As for Pros. Delos Santos, the Court ruled that her 48-day delay in approving the resolution, while acknowledged, could not be deemed "flagrant and prompted by culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform her official duties." Documentary evidence showed she was on approved leave for a significant portion of the period of delay. Given her heavy caseload as City Prosecutor, which included 856 cases from January to June 2010 and 444 cases referred for approval in the first quarter of 2010, a backlog during her absence was understandable and did not indicate malice or bad faith, which is a requirement under Section 4 of R.A. No. 6033 for disciplinary action. Consequently, the charges against both respondents were dismissed, but Pros. Delos Santos was issued a stern warning to ensure greater circumspection in her future duties.
Main Doctrine
To be guilty of gross neglect of duty, it must be shown that the respondent manifested a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform a duty. Mere delay in the approval of a resolution, especially when explained by approved leaves and heavy caseload, does not constitute gross neglect of duty, absent any showing of malice or bad faith.