A.M. No. P-274. January 31, 1977.
ROSENDO LADORES, complainant, vs. ISAURO TUAZON, respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Isauro Tuazon, a process server in the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Branch V, was charged with the deliberate suppression of a telegraphic motion for postponement. Complainant Rosendo Ladores, a defendant in Civil Case No. 353, sent a telegram on February 2, 1971, addressed to the presiding judge, requesting a postponement of the hearing scheduled for February 3, 1971, due to the death of his counsel’s father-in-law. Respondent clerk received this telegram at 4:00 p.m. on February 2.
When the case was called for hearing the following morning, the trial court proceeded with an ex-parte hearing, unaware of the telegram. A decision was subsequently rendered against Ladores on April 28, 1971. Upon learning of the decision, Ladores filed a motion for new trial, citing the unacted-upon telegraphic motion. The trial court, then presided by Judge Mariano V. Benedicto, granted the motion, set aside the decision, and reopened the case to allow the defendants to present evidence. A new decision was later rendered.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Isauro Tuazon is guilty of deliberate suppression of the telegraphic motion for postponement, warranting administrative sanction.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent negligent in the performance of his duties but dismissed the administrative complaint with an admonition. The legal logic centers on the breach of a duty owed by a court employee. Negligence exists when there is a failure to perform an obligation. Respondent’s claim that he attached the telegram to the case record was contradicted by Judge Benedicto’s order, which explicitly stated that had he been aware of the telegram, a postponement would have been favorably considered. This established that the telegram was neither properly attached to the record nor brought to the court’s attention, constituting a clear dereliction of duty.
However, the Court exercised leniency due to mitigating circumstances. First, the prejudicial effect was rectified when the trial court set aside its initial decision and reopened the case, allowing Ladores to present his evidence. Second, the administrative complaint, filed over three years after the incident and only after Ladores lost the civil case, appeared retaliatory rather than a pursuit of legitimate grievance. Third, respondent had an otherwise unblemished record of over eleven years of government service, having been cited as an Outstanding Employee. Thus, while negligence was present, the absence of malicious intent, the corrective judicial action, and respondent’s good record justified dismissal of the complaint. He was sternly admonished to be more vigilant and warned that future negligence would merit severe disciplinary action.