G.R. No. P-05-1987; February 10, 2006
Dr. Edwin Fonghe and Maharlika Canata, Complainants, vs. Cynthia Bajarias-Cartilla, Clerk of Court II, Municipal Trial Court, Dalaguete, Cebu, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants filed three criminal cases against Peter Bejarasco, Jr. before the MTC of Dalaguete, Cebu. The cases were transferred between several MTCs before being returned to Dalaguete. By September 2001, a decision convicting the accused had been rendered in one case (Criminal Case No. R-4246), and the accused filed a notice of appeal on July 29, 2002. The two other cases (Criminal Case Nos. R-4187 and R-4188) remained undecided despite being submitted for resolution as early as June 1999. Complainants alleged that respondent Clerk of Court, Cynthia Bajarias-Cartilla, failed to transmit the records of the appealed case to the appellate court within the reglementary period and that she gave excuses about missing or incomplete records, which also delayed the resolution of the other two cases. They suspected deliberate concealment, noting the accused is respondent’s nephew.
In her defense, respondent claimed the delay in transmittal was due to missing or duplicate transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs), which were only belatedly submitted by a stenographer from another court in January 2003. She denied deliberately concealing records and attributed the unresolved cases to discrepancies and incomplete records.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Clerk of Court is administratively liable for the delay in transmitting court records and for inefficiency in record management.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. Rule 122, Section 8 of the Rules of Court strictly mandates the clerk of court to transmit the complete record to the appellate court within five days from the filing of a notice of appeal. This duty is crucial, especially in criminal cases, to uphold the right to due process and prevent undue delay. Respondent’s excuse that certain TSNs were incomplete or missing is untenable. As held in Villanueva v. Pollentes, the duty to transmit the complete record within the reglementary period is not excused by the absence of TSNs; the record itself must be sent, and TSNs can follow separately.
Furthermore, while the charge of deliberate concealment was not substantiated, respondent’s failure to promptly verify and ensure the completeness and correctness of the records in her custody for the other pending cases reflects an inefficient and disorderly record management system. As clerk of court, she has a duty to maintain an orderly system and supervise court personnel effectively. Her negligence and inefficiency constitute a violation of the high standards of public accountability required of court employees, which undermines public faith in the judiciary. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of Three Thousand Pesos (₱3,000.00) with an admonition to be more diligent and a warning against repetition.