G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-14-2386 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 12-3913-RTJ)
Date: September 16, 2015

Case Parties: Josefina M. Cabuhat, complainant, vs. Judge Reynaldo G. Ros, Clerk of Court Jewelyne Jovette B. Valenton-Carreon and Clerk III Julius B. Salonga, all of Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Manila and Clerk of Court VII Jennifer Dela Cruz-Buendia, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Manila, respondents.

FACTS

The complaint arose from Civil Case No. 06-114514, an appeal from a Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) decision in favor of the Heirs of Romeo Cabuhat (represented by complainant Josefina M. Cabuhat) against PAL Employees’ Savings and Loan Association, Inc. (PESALA). The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33, Manila, presided by Judge Reynaldo G. Ros, affirmed the MeTC decision on June 19, 2006. PESALA filed a motion for reconsideration on July 21, 2006. Complainant alleged she only learned of the June 2006 RTC decision on October 5, 2011. Upon inquiry, Clerk III Julius B. Salonga informed her the case had attained finality and suggested filing a motion to remand the record to the MeTC for execution. Complainant filed two motions to remand. Despite follow-ups over four months, Salonga and Branch Clerk of Court Jewelyne V. Carreon could not initially locate the case record. After it was found, Judge Ros issued an Order dated February 29, 2012, remanding the record to the MeTC. Complainant then filed a motion for execution in the MeTC, which was denied because the RTC record showed PESALA’s motion for reconsideration from 2006 remained unresolved; thus, the case had not attained finality and no entry of judgment existed. Complainant filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty against: (1) Judge Ros for issuing the remand order despite the case’s lack of finality; (2) Carreon and Salonga for taking over four months to locate the case record; and (3) Clerk of Court VII Jennifer Dela Cruz-Buendia for issuing a transmittal letter stating there was an entry of judgment when there was none.
Judge Ros defended that he issued the remand order in good faith, relying on complainant’s motion which stated the decision “had long attained its finality,” and he had no prior information about the pending motion for reconsideration. He attributed the oversight to possible detachment of the resolution from the record due to courtroom renovations and case segregation. Carreon attributed the difficulty in locating the record to logistic problems from courtroom renovation and transfers. Salonga explained the search took months because the record was old and stored among many voluminous files, and he was also leading a records disposal project. Buendia explained the transmittal letter was prepared based on the remand order and the attached case record, and she relied on the regularity of the process.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents are administratively liable for grave misconduct and gross neglect of duty.

RULING

The Court dismissed the complaint against Judge Ros, Carreon, and Buendia for lack of merit. Judge Ros acted in good faith in issuing the remand order based on complainant’s representation of finality, and there was no showing of bad faith or gross ignorance. Carreon’s delegation of the ministerial task of transmittal was not improper, and the delay in locating the record was due to logistical issues, not gross negligence. Buendia’s issuance of the transmittal letter was a routine action based on the court order and submitted record, with no proof of malice.
However, the Court found Julius B. Salonga GUILTY of simple neglect of duty. As the clerk in charge of civil cases, he failed to exercise due diligence in managing case records. His failure to locate the record for over four months and his failure to verify the case’s status (including the pending motion for reconsideration) before suggesting the filing of a remand motion constituted carelessness and indifference to his duties. The Court considered the absence of bad faith or motive and his 16 years of service without prior infraction as mitigating circumstances. He was SUSPENDED for one month and one day, with a warning against repetition. The penalty was mitigated from the recommended dismissal, as his actions constituted simple, not gross, neglect of duty.