A.M. No. MTJ-05-1600. August 9, 2005
SUSANA JOAQUIN VDA. DE AGREGADO, Complainant, vs. Judge EDGARDO B. BELLOSILLO, Legal Researcher I LEONILA S. HUERTO, Clerk III THERESA T. BANABAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Susana Joaquin Vda. de Agregado filed a sum of money case. The defendants were declared in default, and a decision was rendered in her favor on March 3, 2003. The sheriff’s return showed defendant Jose Marcell Panlilio received the decision on April 4, 2003. As no appeal was filed within the 15-day reglementary period, complainant moved for execution on April 22, 2003. However, on April 23, 2003, an attorney filed a notice of appeal, claiming receipt of the decision on April 8, 2003. Respondent Judge Edgardo B. Bellosillo, noting a discrepancy between the sheriff’s return (April 4) and the appeal notice (April 8), ordered the sheriff to clarify. The sheriff reaffirmed service on April 4. Despite this, Judge Bellosillo issued an Order dated April 30, 2003, denying the motion for execution, ruling the appeal was timely as the period should be reckoned from counsel’s alleged April 8 receipt.
Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration. Respondent Legal Researcher/OIC Branch Clerk of Court Leonila S. Huerto received the motion but failed to bring it to the judge’s attention and later transmitted the case records to the Regional Trial Court as if on appeal. Complainant administratively charged Judge Bellosillo with rendering an unjust order, and Huerto and Clerk III Theresa T. Banaban with neglect.

ISSUE

Whether respondents are administratively liable for their actions concerning the execution of the final decision and the processing of the appeal and subsequent motion.

RULING

Yes, Judge Bellosillo and Huerto are administratively liable, while Banaban is exonerated. The legal logic centers on the judge’s duty to verify records meticulously and the court personnel’s duty in case management. For Judge Bellosillo, the period for appeal is reckoned from the party’s receipt of the decision, not counsel’s. The sheriff’s return, a part of the record, conclusively showed service on the defendant on April 4, 2003. The appeal filed on April 23 was thus four days late. The judge’s failure to carefully examine this record before issuing the April 30 Order, which erroneously gave credence to the counsel’s unsupported claim, constituted a failure to exercise the required care and diligence, warranting an admonition.
For respondent Huerto, her failure to act on the pending motion for reconsideration and her premature transmission of the records while the motion was unresolved constituted simple neglect of duty, meriting a one-month and one-day suspension. For respondent Banaban, the complaint alleged mere confirmation of a hearing setting, which is a regular duty, and no substantial participation was proven; thus, she was exonerated. The Court emphasized that while no bad faith was found, strict adherence to procedural rules and diligent record management is imperative to uphold the integrity of judicial processes.