G.R. No. A.M. No. P-2067 October 10, 1980
Emelina M. Salgado, complainant, vs. Belen M. Cortez, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Emelina M. Salgado charged respondent Belen M. Cortez, a Court Clerk-Stenographer I, with neglect of duty. Salgado alleged that she, her son (the offended party in two criminal cases for Slight Physical Injuries), their lawyer, and the Police Station Commander appeared in court on November 9, 1978, at 9:00 a.m., as commanded by a subpoena for the accused’s arraignment. However, no court personnel were present for the case. A court employee later informed them at around 10:30 a.m. that the arraignment had been reset to November 8, 1978, and that a special messenger was supposed to have verbally notified them of this change, which Salgado vehemently denied.
In her explanation, respondent Cortez admitted issuing the subpoena for November 9 but claimed the resetting was requested by the acting prosecutor because the accused’s counsel was unavailable on that date. She alleged the prosecutor assured her he would inform the complainant and that she herself personally informed Salgado a week prior. She contended the presence of the offended party was unnecessary for the arraignment on November 8 and submitted an affidavit from the prosecutor to corroborate her story.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Belen M. Cortez is administratively liable for neglect of duty in connection with the resetting of the case’s arraignment.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found the complainant’s positive allegations more credible than the respondent’s explanations. The legal logic centers on the failure to observe proper court procedures and the unreasonableness of the claimed actions. First, the respondent neglected her duty by relying on a verbal request for resetting and a mere assurance of notification from the acting prosecutor, instead of issuing an official written notice or securing a written conformity from the other party, which are standard safeguards. Second, her claim of having personally notified the complainant was deemed dubious, as such notification could have and should have been formally recorded, such as by having the complainant sign the record. Third, her justification that the offended party’s presence was unnecessary on the new date contradicted her own insistence that she had notified them; if their presence was truly superfluous, the notification effort itself becomes logically suspect. These procedural lapses constitute dereliction of duty. The Court approved the Court Administrator’s recommendation, censuring respondent Cortez and warning that a repetition would warrant more severe disciplinary action.