AM P 93 931; (August, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-93-931, August 14, 1995
Retired Judge Vicente G. Rudas vs. Leonila R. Acedo, Clerk of Court II, 12th MCTC, Abuyog-Javier, Leyte
FACTS
Retired Judge Vicente G. Rudas filed an administrative complaint against respondent Clerk of Court Leonila R. Acedo. The charges included undue interference in a criminal case against her husband, negligence leading to clogging of specific criminal and civil cases, usurpation of judicial functions by improperly acting as a notary public ex-officio, and improperly preparing bail bonds. The complainant attached documents notarized by the respondent where she designated herself as “MCTC Clerk of Court II.” The respondent denied the allegations, attributing delays to counsel and asserting her notarial acts were part of her administrative duties. During the investigation, the complainant filed a manifestation desiring to withdraw the complaint due to humanitarian considerations, leading the investigating judge to recommend dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent Clerk of Court is administratively liable despite the complainant’s desistance.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Court, citing Espayos vs. Lee, ruled that the desistance of a complainant does not automatically result in dismissal, as the Court can determine liability based on the records. The evidence established misfeasance. First, the respondent improperly notarized private documents, specifically special powers of attorney, which is a function reserved by law to the presiding judge as the notary public ex-officio. Clerks of court may administer oaths only in matters related to official business. Second, she was negligent in her docket management. The records showed that in several civil cases, summons had been served years prior, yet the respondent failed to take appropriate steps, such as moving to declare defendants in default, demonstrating remissness in her duty to prevent clogging and ensure speedy disposition. As a clerk of court, she holds a position of public trust requiring competence, integrity, and loyalty to the court. Her actions betrayed this confidence and undermined the administration of justice. Therefore, the Court imposed a three-month suspension without pay with a stern warning.