G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-25-227 (Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 17-4730-P), Date: August 12, 2025
Case Title: Former Presiding Judge Emily R. Aliño-Geluz, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 255, Las Piñas City, Now Associate Justice, Court of Appeals, Complainant, vs. Philip O. Lagac, Clerk III, RTC, Branch 23, Trece Martires City, Cavite, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant, then Acting Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 23, Trece Martires City, Cavite, charged respondent Philip O. Lagac, Clerk III and clerk-in-charge of criminal cases, with gross neglect of duty, insubordination, and inefficiency. The complaint alleged that Lagac’s negligence was the main cause of delays in criminal proceedings, specifically his failure to properly serve subpoenas, orders, and other court processes. Despite repeated directives from the complainant and memoranda from the Clerk of Court, Lagac failed to: (a) maintain systematic filing of criminal case records; (b) obey directives for issuing subpoenas, causing case resets; (c) attach documents pertaining to bail bonds; and (d) produce records for cases involving detention prisoners. He was also habitually tardy and absent. An assisting judge also issued a memorandum directing Lagac to show cause for failing to attach Informations and enclosures in several cases. Lagac failed to file his comment on the administrative complaint despite several directives from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and the Supreme Court. The case was referred to the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB), which found substantial evidence against Lagac.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Philip O. Lagac should be held administratively liable for the acts complained of.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Judicial Integrity Board.
1. On Gross Insubordination: Lagac’s repeated and unjustified refusal to comply with the lawful directives of the OCA and the Supreme Court to file his comment on the administrative complaint constitutes gross insubordination. This refusal shows a clear and willful disrespect for the Court’s authority and the administrative process, which is essential to preserving the judiciary’s integrity.
2. On Gross Neglect of Duty: Lagac’s duties as Clerk III were essential to the prompt administration of justice. His established failures—in systematic filing, serving processes, attaching critical documents, and producing records—despite repeated reminders from his superiors, demonstrate a conscious indifference to his obligations. This negligence directly caused delays in court proceedings, hampering the administration of justice and eroding public faith in the judiciary, thus amounting to gross neglect of duty.
Applying the further amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, which governs the case, the Court found Lagac guilty of both gross insubordination and gross neglect of duty. These are grave offenses under the rules. The penalty imposed was DISMISSAL FROM THE SERVICE, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality.