A.M. No. P-00-1428. January 18, 2001.
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Imelda S. Perlez, Clerk of Court, MTC, Branch 2, San Pedro, Laguna.

FACTS

Judge Gloria B. Aglugub filed a complaint against Clerk of Court Imelda S. Perlez for allegedly failing to submit transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) and hiding case records. This alleged misconduct resulted in Judge Aglugub’s inability to decide 19 cases within the reglementary period, forcing her to seek extensions. The complaint specifically cited the Clerk of Court’s failure to ensure the submission of TSNs taken by a former stenographer, Jennifer Lancion.
In her defense, Perlez vehemently denied the allegations. She argued she had no direct control over the stenographers and could only remind them to submit their TSNs. She emphasized that the delay was solely attributable to Stenographer Lancion, who failed to transcribe her notes despite repeated reminders and even court orders. Perlez asserted she exercised due diligence and should not be blamed for the stenographer’s recalcitrance.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Clerk of Court Imelda S. Perlez is administratively liable for the delay in the disposition of cases due to the non-submission of required transcripts of stenographic notes.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is liable for Simple Neglect of Duty. The Supreme Court modified the Court Administrator’s finding of insubordination, holding that Perlez’s failure constituted simple neglect. As Clerk of Court, she is an administrative officer directly responsible for the efficient management of court business, including the supervision of subordinate personnel such as court stenographers. Her duty extends beyond mere reminders; it requires the exercise of effective supervision to ensure that all court personnel, especially those under her immediate administrative oversight, faithfully perform their duties.
The Court ruled that Perlez failed to discharge this supervisory responsibility diligently. Her reliance on the fact that the stenographer had a temporary appointment and was directly ordered by the judge does not absolve her of her own administrative accountability. The neglect lies in her passivity and failure to take more decisive administrative steps to compel compliance from her subordinate, which contributed to the delay in the judicial process. For this first offense, and considering the absence of a showing of willful intent, the Court imposed a penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay, with a stern warning against repetition.