A.M. No. P-17-3763. November 21, 2017. ENGR. DARWIN A. RECI, Complainant, vs. ATTY. EMMANUEL P. VILLANUEVA, Former Clerk of Court V and SONIA S. CARREON, Former Court Stenographer III, both of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 9, Respondents.
FACTS

This administrative case originated from a complaint filed by Engr. Darwin Reci concerning the delayed transmittal of records to the Court of Appeals in Criminal Case No. 05-236956, where his brother was convicted. The appeal was filed in October 2009, but after nearly three years, the records had not been transmitted. An initial complaint was filed against the presiding judge, but the Court, in a 2014 Resolution, found the delay attributable to respondents Atty. Emmanuel Villanueva, the Clerk of Court, and Sonia Carreon, a Court Stenographer, who were tasked with preparing and transmitting the records. The case was re-docketed against them.
In her Comment, Carreon denied responsibility, stating that preparing records for transmittal was not part of her duties as a stenographer and that she was coerced by Atty. Villanueva into signing a memorandum admitting fault. Atty. Villanueva, despite several directives from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), failed to file his comment. The OCA recommended his dismissal and the forfeiture of his benefits, and a fine for Carreon.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Atty. Emmanuel Villanueva and Sonia Carreon are administratively liable for the delayed transmittal of case records.

RULING

The Court adopted the OCA’s recommendation against Atty. Villanueva but dismissed the complaint against Carreon. Atty. Villanueva was found guilty of simple neglect of duty. Under Section 10, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the clerk of court has the explicit duty to verify, complete, and transmit records to the appellate court within thirty days after the perfection of an appeal. Atty. Villanueva admitted in a memorandum that he had no valid excuse for the failure to transmit the records. As the clerk of court, he bears primary responsibility for the efficiency of his office and the actions of his subordinates; he cannot evade liability by blaming his staff.
However, his negligence was not gross but simple. Citing precedent (Judge Fuentes v. Atty. Fabro), a failure to elevate records for over two years constitutes simple neglect. This is a less grave offense. Given that Atty. Villanueva had a prior record of a three-month suspension, the penalty for this second offense of simple neglect is dismissal. Since he had already resigned, the Court ordered the forfeiture of his separation benefits (except accrued leave credits) and imposed disqualification from re-employment in any government agency.
Regarding Carreon, the Court found the complaint without merit. The duty to transmit records is vested by law in the clerk of court, not the court stenographer. No evidence substantiated that Carreon’s actions, or her coerced memorandum, directly caused the delay. Therefore, she incurred no administrative liability.