G.R. No. P-04-1797. March 25, 2004
Elsa C. Becina, complainant, vs. Jose A. Vivero, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court, Aurora, Zamboanga del Sur, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Elsa C. Becina, a prevailing party in Civil Cases Nos. 61-64, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Clerk of Court Jose A. Vivero for gross negligence and dereliction of duty. The complaint alleged that after the entry of judgment, a motion for execution was filed. The motion remained unresolved upon the death of the presiding judge. The new judge, upon assumption, issued an Order dated May 7, 2003, setting deadlines for the filing of an opposition and a comment. However, this order was not released to the parties, causing a significant delay in the execution process, which the complainant attributed to the respondent’s negligence.
In his Comment, respondent Vivero admitted the delay in releasing the Order. He sought to justify his inaction by citing a series of approved leaves of absence. These leaves were due to injuries from a vehicular accident on May 2, 2003, subsequent medical check-ups, and attendance at a family funeral. He claimed that upon his return to duty, he was not informed by court personnel about the pending Order and was thus unaware of it until the complainant followed up.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Jose A. Vivero is administratively liable for the delay in the release of the court order, and if so, the degree of his liability.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable, but only for simple neglect of duty, not gross negligence. The Court defined simple neglect as the failure to give due attention to a task expected of an employee, signifying carelessness or indifference. While the respondent’s series of leaves contributed to the oversight, the Court found that from May 9 to June 10, 2003, he had reported for duty and had ample opportunity to review and ensure the proper dispatch of orders issued during his absence. His failure to do so constituted negligence.
The Court emphasized the vital role of a Clerk of Court as a key officer essential to the efficient administration of justice. Any act or omission by court personnel that casts suspicion on the court’s integrity or diminishes public faith in the judiciary cannot be countenanced. However, the sequence of events, including his accident and leaves, showed no willful or intentional design to prejudice any party, thereby negating a finding of gross negligence. Considering his admission of fault, plea for forgiveness, and that this was his first offense, the penalty of admonition was deemed sufficient. He was sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.