G.R. No. P-04-1911. October 25, 2005.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, vs. ASTER A. MADELA, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Aster A. Madela, a Legal Researcher and Officer-in-Charge of RTC Manila, Branch 17, issued a “Notice of Docketing of Case under Appeal” dated November 27, 2002, to the parties in an appealed case. The notice stated the case was entered in the docket book but did not explicitly inform the parties that the complete records had been received by the RTC, as required by Section 7, Rule 40 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Realizing this error, respondent retrieved the case record and corrected the file copy by adding the phrase “and the original records and exhibits were received by this Court on even date.” However, the uncorrected original notice had already been sent to the appellant’s counsel.
Consequently, the appellant, not having received the proper notice that the records were complete, failed to file his appeal memorandum within the 15-day period prescribed by the Rules. The RTC thus dismissed his appeal for failure to file the memorandum. The appellant moved for reconsideration, arguing excusable neglect due to the defective notice, and later moved to investigate the discrepancy between the notice he received and the corrected file copy. The RTC denied these motions. The Court of Appeals subsequently annulled the RTC’s orders, ruling the notice was fatally defective for not stating the receipt of records, and directed an investigation into the apparent tampering.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Aster A. Madela is administratively liable for her actions concerning the defective notice and its correction.

RULING

Yes, respondent is liable for Simple Neglect of Duty. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the Executive Judge and the Court of Appeals. The notice sent to the appellant was legally insufficient because it did not comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 7, Rule 40, which uses the imperative “shall” to require the clerk of court to notify parties upon receipt of the complete records. This notice is crucial as it triggers the running of the period to file the appeal memorandum. Respondent’s failure to ensure the proper notice was sent constituted carelessness in the performance of a duty.
While the Court found no evidence of malicious intent to tamper with records, respondent’s actions demonstrated indifference. As an Officer-in-Charge in a sensitive position, she was required to exercise utmost care. Her negligence was compounded when, upon realizing her initial error, she only corrected the file copy and failed to ensure all parties received the corrected notice or to retrieve the erroneous ones. Furthermore, she did not timely bring the discrepancy to the court’s attention when the appellant filed his motion. Simple neglect of duty, defined as the disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference, is punishable by suspension. Accordingly, the Court modified the recommended penalty and suspended respondent for One (1) Month and One (1) Day without pay, with a stern warning.