G.R. No. A.M. No. P-38 October 22, 1974
IN RE: MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 353. Clerk of Court Belinda Antonio, movant.

FACTS

Clerk of Court Belinda V. Antonio of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental was fined one month’s pay via Administrative Order No. 353, issued by the President on April 13, 1973, for neglect of duty. The penalty stemmed from the unexplained loss of the record in Criminal Case No. 418 (People vs. Mapa). The administrative case originated from an investigation by the Secretary of Justice, who found that the record, remanded by the Court of Appeals, was received by Janitor Maximiano Biwang, given to Docket Clerk Eden Ledesma, and should have been transferred to Docket Clerk Presco Labrador. The transfer was not formally recorded, contrary to office procedure, leading to the record’s loss.
Antonio filed a motion for reconsideration addressed to the President, arguing the penalty was drastic and unjust. The motion was eventually forwarded to the Supreme Court. The Secretary of Justice’s prior decision had found Labrador primarily and Ledesma secondarily negligent for the loss, fining them one month’s and fifteen days’ pay, respectively, while exonerating Biwang. Antonio’s separate penalty was based on her supervisory role over the involved subordinates.

ISSUE

Whether the penalty of a one-month salary fine imposed on Clerk of Court Belinda V. Antonio for neglect of duty should be modified.

RULING

Yes, the penalty is modified. The Supreme Court, exercising its constitutional power of administrative supervision over court personnel, reviewed the case. The Court agreed that Antonio could not be fully exonerated. As Clerk of Court, she was remiss in her duty to exercise closer supervision over her subordinates, Labrador and Ledesma, whose direct negligence caused the loss of the court record. She failed to ensure strict adherence to office procedures for tracking document movement.
However, the Court held that her responsibility was vicarious, not direct. The proximate cause of the loss was the specific negligence of her subordinates. While a superior is accountable for lax supervision, the closest vigilance cannot absolutely prevent intentional or negligent acts by responsible subordinates presumed to perform their duties. The Court also noted the record was reconstituted without ultimate prejudice, as the judgment was executed. Therefore, equating her penalty with that of the primarily negligent subordinate (Labrador) was excessively harsh.
Consequently, the Court set aside the one-month salary fine. Instead, Antonio was admonished to exercise greater vigilance and closer supervision over her staff, with a warning that a future similar offense would be dealt with more severely. This balanced the need for administrative accountability with equitable consideration of the degree of fault.