A.M. No. P-07-2349; August 10, 2007
Joseph Anthony M. Alejandro, Complainant, vs. Ms. Marilou C. Martin, Legal Researcher, OIC-Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 268, Pasig City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Joseph Anthony M. Alejandro filed an administrative complaint against respondent Marilou C. Martin, OIC-Clerk of Court, for Unexplained Wealth and Incompetence. The complainant alleged that the respondent possessed assets, including a house and a new Ford Lynx car, disproportionate to her salary and those of her family members who were also court employees. He further claimed she failed to file her Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) for 2004 and 2005. Regarding incompetence, he cited a specific case (SCA No. 2742) where the records were transmitted to the Court of Appeals on September 12, 2006, well beyond the 30-day period from the perfection of appeal on May 30, 2006, as required by the Rules of Court.
In her Comment, the respondent denied owning substantial property, stating she lived with her parents and that the car was purchased by her father on installment. She submitted copies of her SALs for 2004 and 2005 to prove compliance. She admitted the delay in transmitting the records but explained it was due to the volume of the case records and the workload of her subordinate clerk-in-charge, asserting no intentional disregard of the rules.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Marilou C. Martin is administratively liable for the charges of Unexplained Wealth and Incompetence.

RULING

The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). On the charge of unexplained wealth, the Court ruled that the complainant failed to meet the required quantum of proof, which is substantial evidence in administrative cases. The allegations were based on mere information, conjecture, and speculation, not on competent evidence or direct knowledge. The burden of proof lies with the complainant, and absent substantiation, the charge must fail. The respondent’s submission of her SALs further negated the claim of non-filing.
However, the Court found the respondent administratively liable for incompetence concerning the delay in transmitting the case records. As the OIC-Clerk of Court, she bears direct responsibility for the efficient management and timely transmittal of court records to the appellate court. Her admission of the delay, attributing it to her subordinate’s workload, did not exonerate her. The Court emphasized that clerks of court are vital officers tasked with ensuring the speedy administration of justice; any negligence in transmitting records hampers this duty. The delay constituted a violation of Section 10, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court.
Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of ₱3,000.00 on the respondent for her remissness, with an admonition to be more diligent and a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. The charge of unexplained wealth was dismissed for lack of merit.