A.M. No. P-01-1485. November 29, 2001. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. ATTY. MARIE YVETTE GO, Branch Clerk Of Court and PHOEBE PELOBELLO, Court Stenographer III, both of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Iloilo City, respondents.
FACTS

In Civil Case No. 14254, the trial court gave due course to a Notice of Appeal on August 3, 1995, and ordered the transmittal of the records and transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) to the Court of Appeals. The Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Marie Yvette Go, forwarded the records only on February 5, 1997—a delay of over one year and six months. The TSN, however, was not included. Court Stenographer Phoebe Pelobello failed to submit the required TSN despite a direct court order dated January 17, 1997, and subsequent show-cause resolutions from the Court of Appeals. She admitted misplacing her stenographic notes and only submitted them on September 1, 2000, causing a total delay of five years and twenty-eight days in the appellate process.
An investigation by the Executive Judge revealed that Pelobello’s negligence was the primary cause of the delay. The report also found Atty. Go liable under the principle of command responsibility for failing to ensure the timely submission and transmittal of the complete records, despite her supervisory role over court personnel and records.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Atty. Marie Yvette Go and Phoebe Pelobello are administratively liable for gross neglect of duty and insubordination.

RULING

Yes, both respondents are administratively liable. The Court emphasized that the prompt transmittal of records in appealed cases is vital to the speedy administration of justice. Court Stenographer Pelobello was found guilty of gross neglect for her unreasonable delay in submitting the TSN. Her excuse of misplacing the notes and her failure to comply with multiple judicial orders demonstrated a blatant disregard for her duties, which hampered the appellate proceedings.
For Atty. Go, as Branch Clerk of Court, she holds a position of responsibility requiring diligent supervision over court records and personnel. Her failure to follow up on Pelobello’s submission and to ensure the complete and timely transmittal of the appealed records constitutes neglect of duty. The Court applied the principle of command responsibility, holding that a supervising officer must answer for the shortcomings of subordinates when they fail to exercise proper oversight. However, considering the circumstances, her liability was deemed less grave than that of the direct culprit.
Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) on Phoebe Pelobello and admonished Atty. Marie Yvette Go, with a warning that a repetition of the offense would be dealt with more severely.