G.R. No. P-1839 April 27, 1981
Pedro Roque, complainant, vs. Jose C. Hilario, Deputy Clerk of Court of Branch IV, City Court of Pasay City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Pedro Roque charged respondent Deputy Clerk of Court Jose C. Hilario with gross misconduct and acts prejudicial to the public service. The allegations centered on Civil Case No. 12510, where Roque was the defendant. Roque claimed Hilario improperly caused the case’s assignment to his branch due to personal acquaintance with the plaintiff, expedited summons service via a policeman instead of the court process server, and twice moved for the case to be submitted for decision due to the late arrival or absence of Roque and his counsel. Most critically, Roque alleged that Hilario sent hearing notices for January 1978 to his counsel’s old address despite a filed notice of change of address, causing a default and the striking of a witness’s testimony.
In his defense, Hilario denied orchestrating the case assignment, explaining that raffles are conducted by the Executive Judge. He stated he did not know the plaintiff, that the policeman served summons upon the plaintiff counsel’s request, and that court proceedings followed standard calendar calls where absent parties risk adverse actions. He admitted the erroneous mailing of notices to the old address but characterized it as an honest mistake, noting the subsequent order was reconsidered upon discovery of the error.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Deputy Clerk of Court Jose C. Hilario is administratively liable for the acts complained of.

RULING

The Court, adopting the findings and recommendation of the Court Administrator, found Hilario liable only for simple negligence, not gross misconduct. The serious charges of case-fixing and procedural manipulation were not substantiated. The assignment of cases is a raffle function of the Executive Judge, not the deputy clerk. The use of a policeman for summons service is permissible as they are often deputized. Court proceedings routinely proceed when parties are absent or late, and the clerk’s actions in calling the calendar were ministerial and proper.
However, the Court confirmed Hilario’s admission that he sent critical hearing notices to the complainant’s counsel’s former address, despite a recorded change of address. This negligence prejudiced the complainant by causing delay, necessitating additional motions, and impeding the speedy disposition of the case. While an honest mistake, it demonstrated a lack of due care and circumspection expected of court personnel, whose diligence directly impacts judicial efficiency and the public’s faith in the administration of justice. Consequently, the Court reprimanded Hilario and warned that a repetition would warrant a more severe penalty.