AM P 06 2219; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. P-06-2219; July 13, 2009
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Nilda Cinco
FACTS
Nilda Cinco, the Officer-in-Charge and Legal Researcher of RTC Branch 28 in Catbalogan, Samar, reported in December 2004 that several case records were missing from the court. She suspected a co-employee, Lilia Raga, of taking the records to discredit her. An investigation by Acting Executive Judge Carmelita Cuares found that while Cinco was the official custodian, the records were often left unsecured on tables or chairs due to lack of cabinet space, and all court personnel had access to them. The investigation found no evidence to implicate Raga, and the missing records were subsequently reconstituted.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the case, noting Cinco’s admission that she routinely left the record cabinets unlocked to allow co-employees direct access. The OCA found this practice demonstrated a failure in her custodial duties. Cinco, in her defense, cited insufficient storage cabinets and her heavy workload as contributing factors.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Nilda Cinco is administratively liable for the loss of the court records.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found Nilda Cinco guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty. The legal logic is anchored on her statutory and inherent responsibilities as a custodian of court records. Under Section 7, Rule 136 of the Revised Rules of Court, a clerk of court is mandated to safely keep all records and papers committed to her charge. As the Officer-in-Charge, Cinco was the primary custodian and was bound to exercise a high degree of diligence, efficiency, and professionalism in safeguarding these confidential documents.
The Court emphasized that her practice of leaving cabinets unlocked, thereby granting indiscriminate access, constituted a clear dereliction of this duty. Her excuses—lack of storage and a heavy workload—were deemed untenable. The Court ruled that assuming a position of responsibility carries the obligation to perform with utmost devotion, and administrative safeguards cannot be compromised. The loss of records, a serious matter affecting the administration of justice, was a direct consequence of her failure to institute basic security measures. Consequently, the Court suspended her for one month and one day without pay, with a stern warning against repetition.