AM P 07 2339; (August, 2008) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-07-2339, August 20, 2008
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Atty. Jacinto B. Peñaflor, Jr., Clerk of Court VI, RTC, San Jose, Camarines Sur
FACTS
This administrative case stemmed from the repeated failure of respondent Atty. Jacinto Peñaflor, Jr., Clerk of Court, to submit the required Monthly Reports of Collections, Deposits, and Withdrawals for various court funds (Sheriff’s Trust Fund, Fiduciary Fund, General Fund, etc.) covering periods from 1999 to 2004. Despite several directives and a show-cause order from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), he failed to submit the reports and to explain his non-compliance. Consequently, the Court authorized the withholding of his salaries starting September 2004. Respondent eventually submitted the reports in 2007, attributing the delay to a stroke he suffered in September 2004 and subsequent health issues. The OCA, noting the eventual compliance but the prolonged delay, recommended that the matter be treated as a complaint for insubordination and gross neglect of duty.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Atty. Jacinto B. Peñaflor, Jr. is administratively liable for his failure to timely submit the required monthly financial reports.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty. The Court emphasized the vital role of a Clerk of Court as an essential officer in the judiciary, tasked with delicate administrative functions, including the custodianship of court funds and the duty to submit regular financial reports. These reports are crucial for transparency and the proper administration of justice. While the Court acknowledged respondent’s health problems as a mitigating circumstance, it held that such reasons did not fully absolve him from his administrative responsibilities. His failure to submit the reports for an extended period, despite numerous notices, and his practice of submitting them late and in batches, constituted a neglect of his official duties. The neglect was categorized as “simple” because it did not involve malice or gross indifference, and it was his first offense. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act would be dealt with more severely.