AM P 05 1986; (April, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-05-1986. April 15, 2005. ATTY. GENEROSO LEGASPI, JR., Complainant, vs. ATTY. J. ROGELIO T. MONTERO III, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Atty. Generoso Legaspi, Jr. alleged that after entering his appearance as counsel for Rizalina Sasamori in a criminal case, he submitted counter-affidavits and pleadings to the MTCC of San Jose del Monte. Subsequently, Atty. Rogelio Montero, Sr., the respondent’s father, entered his appearance as Sasamori’s new counsel. The pleadings submitted by complainant then disappeared from the court records. An Acting Clerk of Court certified that the court had no record of these documents. Complainant asserted that the respondent, as the custodian, was responsible for their loss, which was done with malice to support a separate disbarment case filed against him by Sasamori, which was later dismissed.
The respondent denied the allegations, claiming the documents were intact in the court files. He questioned the complainant’s motive, suggesting the complaint was filed in bad faith after the complainant’s services were terminated and the disbarment case was dismissed. The case was referred to an Executive Judge for investigation.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Clerk of Court is administratively liable for the alleged disappearance of court pleadings.
RULING
Yes, but for simple neglect of duty, not grave misconduct. The investigating judge found that the missing pleadings were eventually located within the court’s records. However, the respondent failed to properly manage and safeguard these documents as required by his duties under the Manual for Clerks of Court and Section 7, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court. As the custodian, he bears the responsibility for the preservation and orderliness of all court records.
The Court emphasized that a clerk of court’s role is vital to the administration of justice, and any negligence in record-keeping, which is a non-adjudicative function, undermines public confidence in the judiciary. The loss or misplacement of records, even if temporary, constitutes neglect. The Court considered the eventual recovery of the documents and the absence of proof of malicious intent. Consequently, the respondent was found guilty of simple neglect of duty and fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), with a stern warning against repetition.