AM 182; (April, 1976) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-182. April 30, 1976. EUGENIO RECTO, complainant, vs. REMEDIOS RACELIS, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Eugenio Recto alleged that in February 1971, he entrusted to respondent Remedios Racelis, a docket clerk of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, his application for land registration, supporting documents, and approximately P104.00 for filing fees. Respondent accepted these with a promise to properly docket and file the application. Over several years, Recto made repeated inquiries, but Racelis consistently assured him the application had been filed with the Land Registration Commission. Recto later verified with the Commission that no such application was received. Despite his demands, Racelis failed to return his documents and money, prompting him to file this administrative complaint.
In her defense, Racelis claimed she merely assisted Recto’s wife by explaining procedural requirements and temporarily holding the papers for verification. She asserted she returned the documents via a messenger upon discovering deficiencies, but they were misplaced. She later found the papers and money intact in March 1975 during the investigation. The Investigating Judge recommended exoneration, citing the recovery of the documents and fees, the eventual filing of the application, Recto’s conditional willingness to forgive, Racelis’s long government service since 1946, and the absence of malicious intent or personal gain.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Remedios Racelis is administratively liable for her actions in handling complainant’s land registration application and fees.
RULING
Yes, respondent is guilty of gross negligence warranting administrative sanction. The Court rejected the Investigating Judge’s recommendation for exoneration. The evidence established that Racelis, as the docket clerk in charge, accepted the application and fees, creating a duty to promptly process them. Her failure to file the application for over four years, coupled with her false assurances to Recto that it had been filed, constitutes gross negligence. Negligence is defined as the lack of due care and a failure to perform an owed duty. By accepting the documents and fees, Racelis assumed an obligation to act with diligence, which she blatantly disregarded.
The mitigating circumstances—recovery of the intact documents and money, eventual filing of the application, Recto’s conditional forgiveness, and Racelis’s long, previously unblemished service—do not justify exoneration but merely mitigate her liability. Her actions caused the complainant mental anguish, financial expense, and undue delay, while also tarnishing the court’s integrity and public trust in the administration of justice. Court personnel are held to the highest standards of conduct, as the court’s image is reflected in their performance. Therefore, respondent Remedios Racelis is SUSPENDED from office for six months.