G.R. No. A.M. No. P-10-2879; June 3, 2013
AUXENCIO JOSEPH B. CLEMENTE, Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 48, Pasay City, Complainant, vs. EDWIN E. BAUTISTA, Clerk III, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 48, Pasay City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Auxencio Joseph B. Clemente, Branch Clerk of Court of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 48, Pasay City, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Edwin E. Bautista, a Clerk III in the same branch, for Gross Insubordination, Gross Inefficiency, Gross Neglect of Duty, Grave Misconduct, Discourtesy, Laziness, and Other Acts Prejudicial to the Public Service. The complaint was based on multiple memoranda issued to the respondent from 2005 to 2008. These memoranda cited respondent’s repeated unauthorized absences, which delayed court mailings (including subpoenas and notices) and caused case resets; sleeping during office hours inside the courtroom while court was in session; excessive time spent on merienda and chatting; loitering; dishonesty in recording attendance on his bundy card; discourtesy (e.g., munching food in the courtroom); and refusal to sign an unsatisfactory performance rating. Despite being directed by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to comment on the complaint, respondent failed to do so, even after being granted an extension. The OCA found merit in the complaint and recommended a penalty, noting that respondent had already been dropped from the rolls.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Edwin E. Bautista is administratively liable for the charges against him.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of insubordination, simple neglect of duty, and violation of reasonable office rules and regulations.
1. Insubordination: Respondent repeatedly disregarded lawful orders from his superiors (the complainant and the presiding judge) by failing to explain his unauthorized absences and other infractions as required in the memoranda. His failure to comply with the OCA’s directive to comment on the complaint further demonstrated disrespect for the Court’s administrative authority.
2. Simple Neglect of Duty: Respondent’s unauthorized absences and indifference led to delays in preparing and mailing court notices and subpoenas, which adversely affected court proceedings. His neglect resulted from carelessness and indifference, constituting simple neglect of duty (as opposed to gross neglect, which requires more serious character or frequency).
3. Violation of Office Rules and Regulations: Respondent violated office rules by sleeping during office hours, loitering, and engaging in improper conduct (e.g., eating in the courtroom), which were not rebutted due to his failure to comment.
Given that respondent had already been dropped from the rolls, the Court modified the OCA’s recommended penalty of one-year suspension to a fine of Forty Thousand Pesos (₱40,000.00), payable directly to the Court.