A.M. No. P-16-3515, August 10, 2016
ARNOLD G. TENGSON, Complainant vs. ATTY. MARICEL LILLED ASUNCION-ROXAS, Clerk of Court VI, Branch 23, Regional Trial Court, Trece Martires City, Cavite, Respondent

FACTS

Complainant Arnold G. Tecson was convicted by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Trece Martires City, Branch 23, for violation of Republic Act No. 9262 . He filed a notice of appeal on November 4, 2013. Due to a hold-departure order issued in the criminal case, Tecson was unable to accept overseas employment. To pursue his appeal and potentially lift the order, he needed the case records transmitted to the Court of Appeals (CA). In October 2014, the CA informed him it had not received the records. Despite Tecson’s formal request in January 2015, respondent Atty. Maricel Lilled Asuncion-Roxas, the Branch Clerk of Court, failed to transmit the records promptly.
The respondent, in her defense, attributed the delay to an overwhelming workload in a single-sala court and the misplacement of transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs) by a subordinate clerk. She claimed she had instructed her staff to prepare the records and had eventually forwarded the records to the CA without the TSNs. She argued she had no intent to harm the complainant or obstruct justice, suggesting the incident stemmed from an unmanageable caseload.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Maricel Lilled Asuncion-Roxas is guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty for the delayed transmittal of case records to the appellate court.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty. The Court adopted the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Section 8, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court mandates the clerk of court to transmit the complete record to the appellate court within five (5) days from the filing of the notice of appeal. The respondent transmitted the records only on February 23, 2015, over a year after the notice of appeal was filed on November 4, 2013. This constitutes a clear violation of a mandatory, non-discretionary duty.
The Court rejected the respondent’s justifications. Heavy workload and alleged negligence of subordinates are not valid excuses. As clerk of court, she bears direct administrative responsibility for ensuring the prompt and proper transmittal of records. Her failure to exercise due diligence and supervision over her staff constitutes gross neglect. This delay prejudiced the complainant by prolonging his appeal and hindering his employment opportunities. Comparing precedents, the Court found the recommended OCA fine of ₱5,000.00 insufficient. Considering the delay involved a criminal conviction appeal, the Court increased the fine to ₱15,000.00, with a stern warning against repetition.