A.M. No. P-011489. August 9, 2001.
SPOUSES CATALINO AND JUANITA BAUTISTA, complainants, vs. AMELITA O. MENDOZA, Clerk of Court II, 4th Municipality Circuit Trial Court, Alfonso, General Aguinaldo, Cavite, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, spouses Catalino and Juanita Bautista, filed a criminal complaint for frustrated homicide (Criminal Case No. 2337-94) in February 1994 before the 4th MCTC of Alfonso-General Aguinaldo, Cavite. The accused was granted bail, but the trial had not commenced even after a year. In late 1999, the complainants inquired about the case status and were allegedly informed by respondent Clerk of Court Amelita O. Mendoza that the records were lost and the case had been archived. This prompted the spouses to file the present administrative complaint for neglect of duty.
In her comment, respondent denied stating the case was archived. She explained that the court records were subjected to frequent movements due to heavy rains and the dilapidated condition of the courthouse, which had a leaky roof and termite infestations, leading to records being soaked, destroyed, or misplaced. She claimed she told complainants she would check if the records were misfiled or sent to archives. During the investigation before Presiding Judge Alfonso Garcia, complainant Juanita Bautista reiterated that respondent admitted the loss and later asked them to return to reconstitute the records, which they refused. Respondent maintained she had no motive to hide the records and had conducted searches but was hindered by illness and a heavy workload.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Clerk of Court Amelita O. Mendoza is administratively liable for the loss of the court records in Criminal Case No. 2337-94.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable for simple neglect of duty. The Supreme Court emphasized that clerks of court, as essential officers in the judicial system, have the fundamental duty under the Rules of Court and the Manual for Clerks of Court to faithfully and diligently safeguard all court records, papers, and files. The loss of the records of Criminal Case No. 2337-94, a case pending since 1994, constitutes a breach of this solemn responsibility. The Court acknowledged the mitigating circumstances found by the investigating judge: this was the first instance of lost records during respondent’s long service, she exerted efforts to locate and reconstitute them upon learning of the loss, and the complainants themselves were partly at fault for waiting five years to follow up on their case. However, these factors do not absolve her of liability for nonfeasance.
In determining the penalty, the Court found the case analogous to Lloveras v. Sanchez, where a clerk of court was reprimanded for lost records due to office conditions but who showed efforts at reconstruction, rather than to cases involving dishonesty or gross misconduct warranting dismissal. Considering the absence of bad faith and the presence of mitigating factors, a reprimand with a stern warning was deemed the appropriate sanction. The Court adopted the investigating judge’s recommendation and reprimanded respondent Amelita O. Mendoza, warning that a repetition of the same or similar act would be met with a more severe penalty.