A.M. No. P-147 August 29, 1975
Andres Suck, complainant, vs. Rolando Diaz, respondent.

FACTS

The complaint, filed by Andres Suck on behalf of his sister Encarnacion Arciaga Soriño, charged Rolando Diaz, Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Cavite City, with incompetence, unbecoming conduct, and coercion. Mrs. Soriño had filed an administrative complaint against her husband, Andres Soriño, an employee under respondent’s supervision, for allegedly receiving his salary while being absent from work and working on his farm in Mindoro. Respondent Diaz was assigned to investigate this matter.
Mrs. Soriño alleged that despite several subpoenas and her appearances, Diaz refused to conduct hearings, insisting she must be represented by legal counsel. She argued that a Civil Service Commission official had advised her a lawyer was unnecessary as her evidence was complete and documentary. She further claimed that on one occasion, respondent shouted at her and slammed his office door. Diaz denied the discourtesy but admitted requiring legal representation, explaining he wanted to avoid any suspicion of partiality in investigating a subordinate.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Clerk of Court Rolando Diaz is administratively liable for his refusal to investigate the administrative complaint against a subordinate employee unless the complainant secured a lawyer.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of gross neglect of duty. The Court found his insistence on legal representation for the complainant to be unwarranted. The nature of the complaint—verifying whether an employee was absent without leave—was straightforward and primarily required checking official court records on attendance and leave, to which Diaz, as Clerk of Court, had direct access. The evidence was essentially documentary, and no complex legal issues necessitated counsel. The Court emphasized that as a responsible ranking official and a lawyer, Diaz’s duty was to facilitate a simple, expeditious resolution. His inaction constituted a serious neglect of this duty and a callous disregard for the complainant’s situation.
The Court rejected Diaz’s justification of avoiding partiality as strained, noting the investigation’s outcome would hinge on objective records. His apprehension did not excuse his failure to perform a basic supervisory function. While the Investigating Judge found no evil motive, this only mitigated liability; it did not exonerate him. The other charges of discourtesy were not substantiated. Consequently, the Court suspended respondent Diaz from office for six months for gross neglect of duty, with a warning against repetition. The Court also directed the Judicial Consultant to investigate the original complaint against Andres Soriño.