A.M. No. 236. July 29, 1977. EDUARDO G. BAUTISTA, complainant, vs. AVELINO JOAQUIN, JR., Deputy Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance of Bulacan, Branch III, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Eduardo G. Bautista was the plaintiff in a civil case for breach of contract. On January 10, 1974, his counsel filed a motion to declare the defendants in default, alleging they failed to file an answer by the extended deadline of December 24, 1973. The trial court denied the motion on January 14, 1974, stating an answer had been filed on December 19, 1973. Complainant and his counsel had personally examined the case records on January 8, 1974, finding no answer attached and no entry of its receipt in the court’s record book. The clerk-in-charge, Avelina Macalanda, confirmed this absence.
When confronted by the presiding judge, respondent Avelino Joaquin, Jr., the deputy clerk of court, admitted he received the defendants’ answer on December 19, 1973, but forgot to attach it to the records due to pressure of work. Complainant alleged irregularity, noting respondent was not the designated receiving clerk, no copy was served on plaintiff’s counsel, and the pleading only surfaced after the motion for default was filed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Avelino Joaquin, Jr. committed an irregularity in the performance of his duties as a court employee.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of irregularity. The legal logic centers on the paramount duty of court personnel to maintain the integrity and accuracy of court records, which is fundamental to public trust in the administration of justice. The Court meticulously analyzed the conflicting accounts. Respondent initially claimed he gave the pleading to the receiving clerk, Macalanda, but this was contradicted by her sworn affidavit stating she only learned of the answer’s existence in respondent’s possession after complainant’s inquiry. Critically, the answer was not entered in the court’s record book on December 19, 1973, or thereafter, and the original bore no proof of service on complainant’s counsel as of that date.
The Court reasoned these facts created a justified suspicion that the answer was not received on December 19, 1973, as claimed, but was surreptitiously accepted after the filing period had expired. This act, whether due to gross negligence or something more deliberate, constituted a serious irregularity that undermined the court’s procedures and corroded public confidence. The Court emphasized that accurate recording of pleadings is a crucial safeguard, and any failure in this duty warrants administrative sanction. Consequently, respondent was found guilty and fined an amount equivalent to one month’s salary, with a stern warning for future conduct.