AM 00 4 06 SC; (January, 2002) (Digest)
A.M. No. 00-4-06-SC; January 15, 2002
RE: COMPLAINT OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE TITO GUSTILO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ILOILO CITY, AGAINST CLERK OF COURT MAGDALENA LOMETILLO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ILOILO CITY.
FACTS
Executive Judge Tito Gustilo filed a complaint against Clerk of Court Atty. Magdalena Lometillo for gross neglect of duty and habitual tardiness. The neglect charge stemmed from the office of the Clerk of Court being closed on two specific Saturdays, September 4, 1999, and March 11, 2000, during the afternoon hours mandated by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 2-99, which requires maintaining a skeletal force. On the first date, the assigned personnel left due to personal emergencies but later returned; on the second date, respondent was out of town and failed to monitor the office. The habitual tardiness charge was based on respondent’s admitted late arrivals on several days in October and November 1999 and January and February 2000, which she attributed to chronic back pain and medical treatments.
The case was referred to an investigating judge, who found that while respondent had assigned personnel for Saturday duty as required, her supervisory lapse in not ensuring their presence, particularly on March 11, 2000, constituted simple neglect, not gross neglect. The investigator also found the tardiness charges substantiated but considered them a first offense under relevant civil service rules.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Clerk of Court is administratively liable for gross neglect of duty and habitual tardiness.
RULING
The Supreme Court found respondent liable for simple neglect of duty and habitual tardiness, but modified the investigating judge’s recommended penalty. On the neglect charge, the Court emphasized that while respondent complied with the circular by assigning personnel for Saturday duty, she failed in her supervisory duty to monitor their attendance and ensure the office remained open to the public, particularly on March 11, 2000. This lapse, however, did not amount to gross neglect, which requires a willful or grave character, but constituted simple neglect warranting an admonition.
Regarding tardiness, the Court applied Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, which prescribes a reprimand for a first offense of habitual tardiness. Respondent admitted the infractions and cited health reasons, but the Court held these did not sufficiently justify the repeated tardiness. Consequently, the Court imposed an admonition for the neglect of duty and a reprimand for the tardiness, with a stern warning against repetition. The decision underscores that court personnel must be role models in adhering strictly to work schedules and supervisory responsibilities.