G.R. No. P-03-1761. April 2, 2004.
ATTY. RAUL A. MUYCO, complainant, vs. EVA B. SARATAN, Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 32, RTC, Iloilo City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Raul A. Muyco, counsel for the plaintiff-appellee in an unlawful detainer case, sought to execute a favorable judgment pending appeal due to the defendant-appellant’s failure to post a supersedeas bond and deposit monthly rentals as required by the Rules. To prepare a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals after his motion for execution was denied, he requested a certification from respondent Eva B. Saratan, the Branch Clerk of Court, confirming these factual deficiencies based on the court records. He made this initial request on June 16, 2003.
Respondent ignored the written request. Complainant sent a follow-up letter on July 4, 2003, reminding respondent of her duties under Republic Act No. 6713 and warning of administrative charges. Respondent still failed to issue the certification, prompting the filing of this administrative complaint on July 15, 2003. In her comment, respondent explained her hesitation, citing confusion over whether she should issue the certification since the matters were still being litigated by the parties and fear of potential liability.

ISSUE

Whether respondent is administratively liable for her failure to act promptly on complainant’s request for a certification.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty. The Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory duty of public officials and employees under Section 5(a) and (d) of R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards) to act promptly on public requests within fifteen (15) working days and to attend to the public’s transactions expeditiously. This duty is reinforced by Administrative Circular No. 08-99. The respondent’s role as a Branch Clerk of Court is vital to the administration of justice, which includes the duty to provide certified copies from records upon request.
The Court found no merit in respondent’s justification of confusion and fear. Her duty to issue a certification based on the factual contents of the court records was ministerial. If she had any legitimate doubts, the proper course was to communicate this to the complainant promptly, not to ignore the request entirely. By issuing the certification only on July 23, 2003—over a month after the initial request—she failed to perform her duty with reasonable diligence. For this first offense of simple neglect of duty, and considering the applicable rules under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, the Court imposed the penalty of reprimand with a stern warning.