A.M. No. P-95-1142. June 16, 1995. OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. ATTY. MANUEL B. GADON, CLERK OF COURT VI, RTC, ODIONGAN, BR. 82, ROMBLON, respondent.
FACTS:

This administrative case arose from a criminal case for kidnapping with murder pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Odiongan, Romblon. Alexander G. Leaño, the son of the victim, requested a transfer of venue, alleging irregularities committed by the Clerk of Court, Atty. Manuel B. Gadon. The charges included that Gadon made prosecution witnesses sign affidavits of retraction at his residence on a weekend; that he summoned the victim’s mother to persuade her to settle the case; and that he unilaterally reset a hearing on a motion for cancellation of bail without proper notice or court order, causing the absence of prosecution witnesses.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) was directed to investigate. Judge Cezar R. Maravilla, the presiding judge, initially defended Gadon, stating no irregularities were found. However, Judge Maravilla later voluntarily inhibited himself from the criminal case. The OCA’s investigation found substantial evidence supporting the allegations against Gadon.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Manuel B. Gadon is administratively liable for the acts complained of.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Atty. Manuel B. Gadon guilty of grave misconduct and gross ignorance of duty, warranting dismissal from service. The legal logic rests on the fundamental requirement that court personnel must uphold the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Gadon’s actions, collectively assessed, demonstrated a pattern of partiality and gross violation of procedural norms. Administering oaths for affidavits of retraction for vital prosecution witnesses at his residence on a weekend was a glaring irregularity, creating an appearance of impropriety and undermining the proceedings’ fairness. More egregiously, his unilateral resetting of a hearing without a court order or motion, merely upon a verbal request from the defense, constituted usurpation of judicial authority and exhibited clear partiality in favor of the accused. This act directly prejudiced the prosecution by causing their witnesses’ absence. The Court emphasized that clerks of court, as essential officers, must act with utmost propriety and circumspection. Their duties are ministerial and must be performed strictly in accordance with law and court directives. Gadon’s actions, characterized by the Court as not mere lapses but a series of deliberate irregularities, betrayed the trust of his office and were detrimental to the service’s best interests. Consequently, the penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits and disqualification from re-employment in government was imposed.