A.M. No. P-276. March 31, 1980.
Margarita E. Sian, complainant, vs. Ma. Nena Magdaluyo, Clerk of the CFI of Negros Occidental, Branch VI-Himamaylan, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Margarita E. Sian, a court stenographer, filed a letter-complaint charging respondent Clerk of Court Ma. Nena Magdaluyo with falsification/perjury, gross inefficiency, negligence, and habitual tardiness. The specific allegations included that Magdaluyo falsely stated in her information sheet that she was a post-graduate of B.S.E.; that she mailed court orders late and sent notices to wrong parties or lawyers; and that she often reported late and sold products during office hours. The complaint was referred to the respondent for comment.
In her comment, Magdaluyo denied the charges. Regarding the educational background, she claimed she could not recall stating she was a B.S.E. post-graduate, asserted she indicated an A.B. degree in her appointment papers, and argued that any misstatement was without malice as her civil service eligibility qualified her. She denied inefficiency and negligence, attributing any possible errors to common, isolated mistakes. She also denied habitual tardiness, countercharging that the complainant and her father had previously demanded a percentage of her salary for facilitating her appointment.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Ma. Nena Magdaluyo is administratively liable for the charges of falsification/perjury, gross inefficiency, negligence, and habitual tardiness.

RULING

The Court, adopting the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Judge, found respondent liable only for slight negligence and reprimanded her accordingly. On the charge of falsification/perjury regarding her educational attainment, the Court found no conclusive evidence of deliberate falsification. Her eligibility for the position was established by her Second Grade civil service eligibility, rendering the alleged misrepresentation immaterial to her qualification and not proven to be malicious.
The charges of gross inefficiency and negligence were partially substantiated. The investigation revealed specific instances where notices or subpoenas were sent to incorrect lawyers or contained clerical errors, such as setting a hearing on a Sunday. However, the Court noted these mistakes occurred while she was assisting other court personnel who were primarily responsible for the tasks and who themselves had committed similar errors. The heavy workload and congested docket were considered. The lapses were deemed unintentional, committed in good faith, and without proof of actual prejudice to any party or lawyer. Thus, they constituted slight negligence warranting a reprimand, not gross inefficiency.
The charge of habitual tardiness and selling products during office hours was dismissed for lack of convincing evidence. The respondent’s countercharge regarding the demand for a salary cut was also dismissed due to insufficient proof. Consequently, the Court reprimanded Magdaluyo with a stern warning that repetition of similar negligent acts would result in heavier disciplinary action.