G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-07-2325
Date: February 28, 2011

Case Parties/Title: Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, vs. Atty. Rosario E. Gaspar, Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Balanga City, Bataan, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case arose from a judicial audit conducted from February 20 to 25, 2006, by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on several RTC branches in Bataan. The audit revealed, among other lapses, the failure of certain Branch Clerks of Court, including respondent Atty. Rosario E. Gaspar, to issue corresponding writs of execution on cancelled or forfeited bail bonds. The Court referred the matter to the OCA for investigation and directed the respondents to file their comments and to issue the writs. In her Comment, Atty. Gaspar admitted she overlooked and inadvertently failed to issue the writs. The OCA recommended that Atty. Gaspar be fined ₱3,000.00 for neglect of duty for issuing the writs of execution in Criminal Case Nos. 8333 and 8194 only on August 4, 2006, when the judgments against the bonds were rendered almost two years earlier. The Court adopted the OCA’s findings but required Atty. Gaspar to manifest if she was willing to submit the case for decision. Atty. Gaspar pleaded for a lighter penalty, citing mitigating circumstances: she was a new employee at the time and unfamiliar with the records; the order in one case did not specifically mention issuing a writ; she believed there was no immediate need for a writ as the bondsman was given only three days to produce the accused; and she contended the writ in the other case was issued just over six months, not two years, after the order.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Rosario E. Gaspar is administratively liable for her failure to immediately issue the writs of execution on forfeited surety bonds, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Rosario E. Gaspar is administratively liable for Simple Neglect of Duty.
The Court agreed with the OCA’s findings but modified the recommended penalty. As Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Gaspar had a duty under the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court to issue writs of execution to implement judgments of forfeiture. The records confirmed her failure to perform this duty efficiently. In Criminal Case No. 8333, the judgment was rendered on April 24, 2003, but the writ was issued only on August 6, 2006. In Criminal Case No. 8194, the judgment was rendered on June 8, 2004, and the writ was issued also on August 6, 2006. This constituted a failure to give proper attention to a required task due to carelessness or indifference, which is simple neglect of duty. The Court distinguished this from gross neglect, as there was no showing of willful or intentional omission; Atty. Gaspar admitted her omissions were due to oversight and she undertook immediate rectification. Under the Uniform Rules, simple neglect is a less grave offense punishable by suspension. However, a fine may be imposed instead. Considering Atty. Gaspar’s candid admission of her lapses and her apologies, the Court reduced the fine from the OCA’s recommended ₱3,000.00 to One Thousand Pesos (₱1,000.00). She was also warned that a repetition of the same or a similar offense would be dealt with more severely.