G.R. No. P-02-1567. March 28, 2005
Hilario Tudtud and Alberto Tudtud, Complainants, vs. Atty. Rey D. Caayon, Clerk of Court VI, RTC of Bogo, Cebu, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Hilario and Alberto Tudtud, intervenors in Civil Case No. BOGO-00099 before the RTC, Branch 61, Bogo, Cebu, seasonably filed a notice of appeal on October 6, 1998, after losing the case. They later discovered that the records of the case had not been transmitted to the Court of Appeals for over one year and five months. They filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Rey D. Caayon, the Branch Clerk of Court, alleging serious misconduct, graft, corruption, and dishonesty. They contended that his inaction violated Section 10, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which mandates transmission within 30 days after perfection of appeal, and speculated it was done intentionally to give undue advantage to the opposing party.
In his Comment, respondent admitted the delay but denied any ill motive. He explained that the case records were inadvertently placed in a cabinet for disposed cases and were only discovered during an inventory in January 2000. He cited his heavy workload, including performing ex-officio duties as cashier and assuming responsibilities due to staff shortages, as contributing factors. He transmitted the records to the Court of Appeals on March 31, 2000, prior to receiving the order to comment, and argued the complaint should be considered closed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Rey D. Caayon is administratively liable for the delay in transmitting the case records to the appellate court.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable for simple neglect of duty. The Supreme Court found that the delay of one year and five months in transmitting the records constituted a failure to perform a duty essential to the administration of justice. The legal logic centers on the non-delegable responsibility of a Clerk of Court for the efficient management and safekeeping of court records. The Court rejected respondent’s justifications. Heavy workload and additional duties do not excuse the neglect, as court personnel are expected to manage their responsibilities with diligence and professionalism. The misplacement of records, while claimed to be unintentional, demonstrated a lack of proper care and system in record custody.
The Court distinguished the offense from the more serious charges of gross misconduct or dishonesty initially alleged, as no evidence of bad faith, corruption, or intentional delay to benefit a party was substantiated. Applying precedents and Civil Service Commission rules classifying simple neglect as a less grave offense, and considering it was respondent’s first offense, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00) instead of suspension. A warning was issued that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. This penalty balances accountability for the neglect that prejudiced the complainants’ right to appeal with the mitigating circumstance of being a first-time offender.