G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-05-2061. Date: August 19, 2005.
Case Parties/Title: MARCIAL GALAHAD T. MAKASIAR, Complainant, vs. FE L. GOMINTONG, Clerk III, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Marcial Galahad T. Makasiar, Clerk of Court V of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 89, charged respondent Fe L. Gomintong, Clerk III of the same court, with gross neglect of duty. The case stemmed from the loss of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSNs) in Civil Case No. Q-01-43766, “Jun-Jun Conol v. Lelita Conol.” After the trial court rendered a decision and the Office of the Solicitor General filed a notice of appeal, an order was issued to elevate the records to the Court of Appeals. During preparation for transmittal, respondent discovered the original TSNs were missing. Complainant alleged that respondent knew of the loss as early as the first week of February 2003 but failed to report it, and that she did not place the TSNs in a separate folder as instructed. Complainant later requested to withdraw his complaint after the TSNs were re-transcribed. In her comment, respondent claimed she informed complainant about the missing TSNs on February 19, 2003, suggested she transcribe them, but was turned down. She attributed the loss possibly to the “untying and revising” of records during the remarking of exhibits and cited shortages of folders and supplies as reasons for not using separate folders. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the loss was not intentional but that respondent was remiss in her duties. The OCA also found complainant remiss in his supervisory duties.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Fe L. Gomintong is administratively liable for the loss of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent GUILTY of simple neglect of duty. The Court held that as a Clerk III, her functions under the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court include maintaining a systematic filing system, and the loss of the TSNs reflected her failure to faithfully discharge this responsibility. Her explanations—shortage of supplies and the possible effect of the remarking of exhibits—did not mitigate her liability. The re-transcription of the TSNs did not absolve her, as the loss caused delay, wasted manpower, and compromised public faith in the judiciary. Simple neglect of duty is a less grave offense punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense. The Court suspended respondent for one month and one day with a stern warning. The Court also reminded complainant, as Clerk of Court and custodian of records, of his duty to ensure an orderly record management system and to supervise subordinate personnel closely.