A.M. No. P-06-2244, December 6, 2006
Saga Design, Inc. vs. Atty. Emeline B. Cabahug, Clerk of Court V, RTC, Branch 56, Mandaue City

FACTS

Complainant Saga Design, Inc., plaintiff in Civil Case No. Man-4500, charged respondent Atty. Emeline B. Cabahug, Branch Clerk of Court, with violation of norms of conduct and arbitrariness. The complaint stemmed from two incidents concerning the pre-marking of exhibits. First, on November 18, 2005, the respondent, who had scheduled the pre-marking, left her office to attend to a school matter concerning her child, causing the cancellation. The parties and counsels, who arrived as scheduled, agreed among themselves to reset it to December 9, 2005.
Second, on December 9, 2005, the complainant’s representative and counsel arrived approximately 13 minutes late. By then, the defendants’ party had already left, and the respondent informed the complainant of a further resetting to January 25, 2006. The complainant’s counsel refused to sign the resetting, arguing the case had been pending for two years. The pre-marking was ultimately completed on January 5, 2006, following a motion.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Emeline B. Cabahug is administratively liable for her actions concerning the scheduled pre-marking of exhibits.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty. The Court defined this as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee, signifying disregard from carelessness or indifference. Regarding the November 18 incident, the respondent admitted leaving her post for a personal matter, despite having personally scheduled the pre-marking. Her act of seeking the presiding judge’s permission did not excuse her failure to ensure the proper conduct or cancellation of a duty she was specifically tasked to perform. As Branch Clerk of Court, she is a key administrative officer expected to act with diligence and prioritize official responsibilities during working hours to avoid delays in the judicial process. Her negligence disrupted the court’s schedule.
Concerning the December 9 incident, the Court found no arbitrariness. The resetting was a consequence of the complainant’s own tardiness, and the defendants’ party could not be expected to wait indefinitely. The penalty for Simple Neglect of Duty, a less grave offense, ranges from suspension of one month and one day to six months. Considering it was the respondent’s first offense and to prevent undue disruption of public service, the Court modified the OCA’s recommended suspension. The respondent was instead fined an amount equivalent to one month’s salary with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.