G.R. No. A.M. No. P-95-1161 February 10, 1997
Atty. Jesus N. Bandong, Clerk of Court VI, Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Cataingan, Masbate, complainant, vs. Bella R. Ching, Court Interpreter, respondent.

FACTS

This administrative matter originated from a complaint against respondent Bella R. Ching, a Court Interpreter, for neglect of duty. In a prior decision dated August 23, 1996, the Court found Ching guilty and, in the same ruling, directed the complainant, Atty. Jesus N. Bandong, the Clerk of Court, to show cause why he should not also be disciplinarily dealt with for neglect of duty in supervision. The Court noted that Ching’s neglect persisted for over a decade, necessitating an explanation from her immediate superior regarding his failure to detect and correct the nonfeasance.
In his Compliance, Atty. Bandong explained that since his appointment, he had exercised supervision with due diligence. He asserted that he constantly reminded his personnel of their duties, furnished them with copies of the Manual for Clerks of Court and Position Description Forms, and participated in conferences called by the Executive Judge. He claimed it was his belief that, due to these reminders, respondent was performing well, though he admitted that the pressure of his own work sometimes prevented him from foreseeing every detail of her acts.

ISSUE

Whether Atty. Jesus N. Bandong, as Clerk of Court, is administratively liable for neglect of duty in failing to adequately supervise his subordinate, respondent Bella R. Ching.

RULING

Yes, Atty. Bandong is administratively liable. The Court found his explanation plainly unsatisfactory. The legal logic centers on the nature of a Clerk of Court’s duties as an administrative officer. Per the Manual for Clerks of Court, Clerks of Court have control and supervision over all court records. This duty is not discharged merely by issuing reminders, distributing manuals, or holding conferences. Effective supervision requires active and periodic assessment, monitoring, and verification of subordinates’ work accomplishments.
Bandong’s admission that he sometimes could not foresee details due to his workload, coupled with the decade-long undetected neglect of the interpreter, constitutes an unwitting confession of inadequate supervision. His role demanded proactive verification, such as periodically checking if court minutes were being prepared. His failure to do so allowed the subordinate’s nonfeasance to continue. The Court emphasized that Bandong cannot assume a passive stance; the discovery of Ching’s neglect was a revelation of his own supervisory lapse. Consequently, for neglect of duty, he was fined Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00).