G.R. No. A.M. No. P-13-3124 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 07-2482-P). February 28, 2023.
Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, vs. Atty. Jerry R. Toledo, then Branch Clerk of Court [now Clerk of Court V] and Menchie Barcelona, Clerk III, both of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 259, Parañaque City, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Atty. Jerry R. Toledo, then Branch Clerk of Court, and Menchie Barcelona, Clerk III and evidence custodian, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 259, Parañaque City, were administratively charged. It was discovered in November 2003 that 960.20 grams of shabu (evidence in Criminal Case No. 01-1229) and 293.92 grams of shabu (evidence in Criminal Case No. 03-0408) were missing from the court’s steel cabinet under Barcelona’s custody and Toledo’s supervision. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initially found them guilty of simple neglect of duty. The Court, in a Per Curiam Decision dated February 4, 2020, found them guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service, with cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of benefits, and perpetual disqualification from reemployment. Their first motions for reconsideration were denied with finality in a Resolution dated February 16, 2021. Atty. Toledo subsequently filed a Manifestation and Motion for Reconsideration Ad Cautelam, essentially a second motion for reconsideration, arguing he did not commit gross neglect and pleading for mitigation based on his 24 years of service, employment record, and work ethics.

ISSUE

1. Whether Atty. Toledo committed Gross Neglect of Duty.
2. Whether the penalty of dismissal from service should be imposed against Atty. Toledo for Gross Neglect of Duty.

RULING

The Court, acting on the second motion for reconsideration which it entertained in the higher interest of justice as Atty. Toledo’s sole employment and family livelihood were at stake, modified its previous ruling.
1. On Gross Neglect of Duty: The Court remained convinced that Atty. Toledo was accountable for the loss of evidence. As Branch Clerk of Court, he had the duty of custody and safekeeping of evidence. He admitted he did not know the contents of the steel cabinet and vault since his assumption of office in 1996 because the previous clerk did not properly turn them over, and he gave Barcelona a “free hand” in safeguarding evidence. This failure to supervise constituted neglect of duty. However, the Court re-evaluated the degree of his negligence.
2. On the Penalty: The Court modified the penalty. Applying Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC (which applies retroactively if favorable to the employee), Gross Neglect of Duty is classified as a less serious charge. For a first offense of a less serious charge, the applicable penalty is suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months, not dismissal. Considering the mitigating circumstances in Atty. Toledo’s favor—his 24 years of service in the judiciary, unblemished record prior to this incident, and acknowledgment of his work ethics and dedication—the Court deemed a three-month suspension without pay as the appropriate penalty. Since Atty. Toledo had already been out of service for more than three years from the finality of the February 4, 2020 Decision, the penalty was deemed served. He was ordered reinstated to his former position.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
WHEREFORE, the Court MODIFIES its February 4, 2020 Decision and February 16, 2021 Resolution. Atty. Jerry R. Toledo is found GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty, a less serious charge, and is SUSPENDED for three (3) months without pay. Considering that the modified penalty is now DEEMED SERVED by Atty. Toledo, he is REINSTATED to his former position. SO ORDERED.