A.M. No. 1641. February 28, 1979.
RODOLFO PAA, complainant, vs. VALENTIN C. REMIGIO, Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance of Isabela Br. III, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Rodolfo Paa charged respondent Clerk of Court Valentin C. Remigio with gross neglect of duty and defiance of a lawful court order. The complaint stemmed from Civil Case No. Br. V-207, where a summons for defendant Ignacio Cabauatan was forwarded to respondent’s office for service. The initial summons was received on December 2, 1974, yet no return of service was made for over two years. On March 23, 1977, Judge Procoro J. Donato issued an order directing respondent to submit the return within five days. Respondent failed to comply, prompting the administrative complaint.
In his comment, respondent admitted receiving a subsequent summons on December 9, 1976, which he claimed to have served on the defendant on December 11, 1976. However, he explained he forgot to prepare and submit the return due to pressure of work. He also admitted receiving but misplacing unopened the registered mail containing the court’s March 23, 1977 order, thus claiming ignorance of its directive. Judge Donato, in a subsequent order dated July 19, 1977, found respondent grossly negligent and issued a stern reprimand.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Clerk of Court Valentin C. Remigio is administratively liable for gross negligence in the performance of his official duties.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found his explanations for the delays and non-compliance wholly unsatisfactory. The legal logic centers on the indispensable role of a Clerk of Court as an essential officer in the judicial machinery, mandated to act with efficiency, responsibility, and promptness to ensure the proper administration of justice. Respondent’s failure to act on the summons received in 1974, his admitted forgetfulness regarding the 1976 summons return due to “pressure of work,” and his negligent act of misplacing a court order unopened constitute a pattern of gross negligence. Such conduct directly causes undue delay in court proceedings, clogging the docket, and frustrating the ends of justice.
The Court emphasized that the stern reprimand imposed by the trial judge was too lenient for the gravity of the offense. A Clerk of Court must be a model of official integrity and efficiency. Respondent’s actions demonstrated a clear dereliction of these duties. Consequently, the Supreme Court imposed a heavier penalty to serve as a deterrent and uphold the standard of conduct required from court personnel. Respondent was fined an amount equivalent to three months’ salary, with authorization to withhold his salary until the fine is fully paid.