G.R. No. MTJ-94-972 January 20, 1995
Eteria T. Tan, complainant, vs. Judge Mamerto Y. Coliflores and Branch Clerk of Court Jose A. Legaspi, both of MTCC, Branch I, Cebu City, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Eteria T. Tan charged respondents with “obviously intentional deferment and delaying tactics” for the delayed transmission of the original records of Criminal Case No. 10781-R for concubinage to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). She alleged that respondent Judge Mamerto Y. Coliflores issued an order on February 17, 1993, directing the transmission of the records on appeal, but respondent Branch Clerk of Court Jose A. Legaspi only carried it out on March 10, 1994. The complainant further claimed that the court branch had been inefficient due to corrupt practices.
In his comment, Judge Coliflores stated that after issuing the order, he reminded Legaspi of his ministerial duty to transmit the records and believed the order had been complied with. Respondent Legaspi denied any friendship with or bribery from the accused. He attributed the delay to the non-arrest of a co-accused, a mix-up of transcripts during a case inventory, and a fire in the Judge’s chambers.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Mamerto Y. Coliflores and Branch Clerk of Court Jose A. Legaspi are administratively liable for the delay in transmitting the case records to the RTC.

RULING

The Court dismissed the charges against Judge Coliflores but found Branch Clerk of Court Legaspi administratively liable. Under Rule 122, §8 of the Rules of Court, the clerk or judge must transmit the complete record to the appellate court within five days after the notice of appeal is filed. The Court held that Judge Coliflores could not be held liable for the year-long delay. As a presiding judge, he has supervisory authority but is entitled to presume that the Branch Clerk of Court, as a responsible employee, would perform his ministerial duties promptly. The judge had issued the order and reminded Legaspi, fulfilling his supervisory role.
In contrast, the Court found Legaspi’s explanations for the delay unpersuasive. As Branch Clerk of Court, he has the direct responsibility to ensure the timely and proper transmission of appealed case records. His cited reasons—non-arrest of a co-accused, inventory mix-up, and a fire—did not justify a one-year delay and demonstrated a want of diligence and failure to uphold the standards of official integrity, responsibility, and efficiency required of court personnel. Consequently, the Court imposed on Legaspi a fine equivalent to three months’ salary for negligence.