AM P 02 1595; (April, 2003) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-02-1595. April 3, 2003. TIMOTEO M. CASANOVA, JR., complainant, vs. FELIZARDO P. CAJAYON, Clerk III, RTC, Branch 45, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Timoteo M. Casanova, Jr., the OIC Branch Clerk of Court, filed a verified complaint against respondent Felizardo P. Cajayon, a Clerk III in the same branch, for various administrative charges including neglect of duty, inefficiency, refusal to obey orders, and conduct prejudicial to the service. The complainant alleged that since his appointment in 1989, respondent often reported late for work, was unproductive, and disregarded lawful instructions. Specific instances included respondent’s failure to act on official communications from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), such as a directive to submit the semestral docket inventory of cases. Complainant also reported that respondent, due to his closeness to the Executive Judge, initially avoided investigation.
In his Comment, respondent denied all accusations. He asserted he was punctual, as evidenced by his Daily Time Records countersigned by complainant himself, and that he diligently performed his duties, even preparing monthly reports. He claimed to have complied with the OCA’s requirements, submitting the necessary inventory. The case was initially investigated by Executive Judge Pagayatan, who recommended dismissal based on a withdrawal by the complainant and an undertaking from the respondent. The OCA, citing jurisprudence that a withdrawal does not result in automatic dismissal, ordered a re-investigation.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Felizardo P. Cajayon is administratively liable for the charges against him.
RULING
Yes, but only for a specific infraction. The Court found the record devoid of evidence to support the bulk of the complainant’s allegations, particularly those concerning habitual tardiness and absenteeism. The respondent’s Daily Time Records, duly countersigned by the complainant, and his “Very Satisfactory” performance ratings directly contradicted these claims. However, the Court upheld the finding of the re-investigating judge and the OCA that the respondent failed to submit the required semestral docket inventory on time, constituting simple neglect of duty.
The Court emphasized that administrative cases involve public interest and are not dependent on the whims of the complainant. The conduct of court personnel, from judges to the lowest clerks, reflects directly on the judiciary’s integrity. Fighting and misunderstandings among them are disgraceful and undermine public confidence. While the investigating judge recommended reprimanding both parties for their conduct stemming from a personal misunderstanding, the Court modified this. It held that reprimanding the complainant motu proprio for filing the complaint violated his right to be informed of charges against him. His act merely trifled with the Court’s time, warranting only an admonition. Accordingly, respondent Cajayon was REPRIMANDED for his failure to submit the inventory on time. Both parties were STERNLY WARNED that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.