G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-10-2794; June 1, 2011 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2937-P)
Case Title: Danella G. Sonido, Complainant, vs. Josefina G. Ilocso, Clerk III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 80, Morong, Rizal, Respondent.

FACTS

Danella G. Sonido, mother of the complainant in a criminal case for violation of R.A. No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) against Kristel Ann S. Asebo, inquired about the case at the RTC, Branch 80, Morong, Rizal, on January 29, 2008. She was referred to respondent Josefina G. Ilocso, Clerk III. Ilocso promised to prepare the warrant of arrest and told Sonido to return the next day. Sonido returned several times thereafter, but Ilocso repeatedly failed to provide a copy, offering various excuses (e.g., warrant not yet prepared, no one to sign it, case folder lost). Ilocso eventually assured Sonido that copies had been mailed to authorities for implementation. On June 26, 2008, Ilocso finally gave Sonido a copy of the warrant, with the remark “sige ipahuli mo na yan.” Sonido gave Ilocso ₱100.00 in gratitude. However, Sonido later learned from police that the warrant had not been implemented and that the accused, Kristel, had left the country in May 2008 to work in Taiwan. Inquiries with the Morong Police, Teresa Police, and the NBI confirmed they had not received copies of the warrant. Ilocso, in her defense, claimed the failure was due to memory lapse, honest mistake, and a heavy workload exacerbated by a judicial audit. She denied receiving the ₱100.00 and stated the delay was not deliberate, noting that the criminal case was later dismissed based on a compromise agreement and affidavit of desistance executed in December 2009.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Josefina G. Ilocso is administratively liable for her actions concerning the delay in the release and service of the warrant of arrest in the criminal case.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent Josefina G. Ilocso LIABLE for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. The Court rejected the Office of the Court Administrator’s finding of simple neglect of duty, ruling that Ilocso’s infraction was more serious. The delay was not due to mere forgetfulness or workload but was “by design” to favor the accused. The Court highlighted the sequence: Sonido’s persistent requests from January 2008, Ilocso’s repeated excuses and false assurances, the eventual release of the warrant only on June 26, 2008, and the accused’s departure abroad in May 2008. This timing prevented the arrest. The Court held that Ilocso’s actions constituted a deliberate delay that allowed the accused to evade the law, thereby undermining the administration of justice and public confidence in the judiciary. Applying the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which penalizes Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service with suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense, the Court imposed a penalty of SUSPENSION FOR ONE (1) YEAR WITHOUT PAY. She was also warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.