G.R. No. A.M. No. P-91-600 July 21, 1993
JUDGE EDILBERTO S. RAMOS, complainant, vs. ATTY. DAMASO GREGORIO, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 41, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro, respondent.

FACTS

In a letter dated November 28, 1990, Judge Edilberto S. Ramos filed a complaint against his Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Damaso Gregorio, for several administrative infractions. The charges included failing to transmit the records of two criminal cases (Criminal Cases Nos. P-3276 and 3277) on appeal to the Court of Appeals, despite the notice of appeal being filed as early as February 12, 1990, and for reporting to work drunk on November 27, 1990, and on other occasions. The Court treated the letter as an administrative complaint and directed the respondent to comment. In his defense, respondent attributed the delay in transmitting the records to heavy workload and lack of office equipment, and explained that his apparent drunkenness on November 27, 1990, was due to lack of sleep after attending a wedding dance party the night before. The case was referred to the Court Administrator for evaluation. Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez, in a memorandum dated September 8, 1992, found respondent’s excuses weak and recommended a one-month suspension without pay. The Court then referred the case to Executive Judge Manuel A. Roman for investigation. During the hearing on January 20, 1993, Judge Ramos manifested that respondent had apologized for the drunkenness incident and expressed disinterest in pursuing that charge, provided respondent improved his court service. Regarding the failure to transmit records, respondent submitted the case based on the records without presenting additional evidence. Judge Ramos formally confirmed his disinterest in a letter dated February 16, 1993. Executive Judge Roman, in a letter dated January 16, 1993, agreed with the Deputy Court Administrator’s findings but, considering Judge Ramos’s desistance, recommended dismissal to give respondent another chance.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Damaso Gregorio should be held administratively liable for negligence in failing to transmit court records on appeal and for reporting to work drunk, despite the complainant’s subsequent desistance from pursuing the charges.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court rejected Executive Judge Roman’s recommendation for dismissal, emphasizing that the complainant’s desistance is not a ground for dismissal when the charges are duly established. The Court noted that Judge Ramos’s desistance pertained only to the drunkenness charge, not to the negligence in transmitting appeal records. Adopting the findings of Deputy Court Administrator Suarez, the Court held respondent guilty of negligence for failing to transmit the records of the criminal cases to the Court of Appeals by May 8, 1991, despite the appeal notice being filed in February 1990. Respondent’s excuses of heavy workload and lack of equipment were deemed insufficient for exoneration, though they could mitigate liability. The Court also highlighted that respondent made no attempt to request an extension of time for transmitting the records as required by the Rules of Court. Accordingly, respondent Atty. Damaso Gregorio was SUSPENDED for one (1) month without pay, with a warning that repetition of such acts or other administrative lapses would be dealt with more severely.