A.M. No. 03-10-250-MCTC. September 29, 2004.
RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MCTC-DAPA, SURIGAO DEL NORTE.

FACTS

A judicial audit of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Dapa-Socorro, Surigao del Norte, presided by Judge Rolando T. Literato as Acting Presiding Judge, revealed significant administrative deficiencies. The audit found that docket book entries were not updated for pending cases, and the Clerk of Court, Evernaldo D. Galanida, demonstrated ignorance of procedural rules. Specific irregularities included the resetting of cases without court orders, the use of mere photocopies of a cash bond receipt in a criminal case, and the failure to issue alias warrants for accused at large. In a civil case, defendants were erroneously declared in default twice. Judge Literato, when confronted, attributed the delays and mishandling of pleadings to the Clerk of Court, whom he claimed controlled case movement and failed to promptly bring matters to his attention.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed both respondents to explain. Judge Literato essentially reiterated that his limited time at the station (10 days a month) and the Clerk of Court’s control over court personnel and records hindered his supervision. Clerk of Court Galanida admitted to some procedural lapses, such as serving summons by mail in violation of rules for cases involving real property, but offered explanations for other findings.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Rolando T. Literato and Clerk of Court Evernaldo D. Galanida are administratively liable for the procedural irregularities and inefficiencies found during the judicial audit.

RULING

Yes, both respondents are administratively liable. The Court emphasized that a judge is the embodiment of competence, integrity, and independence, and bears primary responsibility for the proper discharge of official functions. Judge Literato’s defense of infrequent presence and reliance on his clerk was unacceptable. As presiding judge, he has the duty to supervise court personnel and adopt a system of record management to ensure efficiency. His failure to do so constituted gross inefficiency and neglect of duty. The Court noted that while his designation to multiple courts was a mitigating factor, it did not absolve him of responsibility for the court’s disarray.
For Clerk of Court Galanida, the Court found him liable for gross ignorance of procedural rules, particularly for improperly serving summons by mail in actions involving title to real property, and for general neglect in updating docket books and securing proper court orders for resettings. As an officer charged with administrative functions, he is expected to be proficient in procedure. His admissions and failure to satisfactorily explain other lapses warranted sanction.
The Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱20,000.00) on Judge Literato and Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00) on Clerk of Court Galanida, with a stern warning. The charge against the Clerk of Court of MCTC Cantillan-Carrascal regarding the cash bond receipt was dismissed based on her denial and corroborating evidence.