AM RTJ 02 1743; (July, 2006) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-02-1743. July 11, 2006. ATTY. ERNESTO C. JACINTO, complainant, vs. JUDGE LYDIA Q. LAYOSA AND CLERK III CHERYL BUENAVENTURA, respondents.
FACTS
Complainant Atty. Ernesto C. Jacinto, counsel in Civil Case No. Q-95-23426, charged Judge Lydia Q. Layosa and Clerk III Cheryl Buenaventura with infidelity in the custody of public documents and gross neglect of duty. The complaint alleged that the entire records of the case went missing after respondent Judge Layosa assumed her post at RTC Branch 217, Quezon City. This was evidenced by two orders issued by Judge Layosa in May and June 1999, which noted the loss and scheduled conferences for reconstitution. The records had been intact under the court’s two previous presiding judges.
In her comment, Judge Layosa admitted the case was among those pending when she assumed duty but denied personal responsibility. She asserted she performed regular inventories, gave instructions for safekeeping, and took immediate action upon being verbally informed by respondent Buenaventura of the loss, including issuing orders for reconstitution and seeking assistance from the Court Administrator and the NBI. Respondent Buenaventura, the clerk in charge of civil cases, stated she discovered the loss in April 1999. She admitted the filing cabinet’s lock was defective but insisted the records were properly kept and that nobody had borrowed them.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Judge Lydia Q. Layosa and Clerk III Cheryl Buenaventura are administratively liable for the loss of the court records.
RULING
Yes, both respondents are liable for simple misconduct. The legal logic centers on the non-delegable duty of care and supervision over court records. For court personnel like Buenaventura, direct physical custody entails the primary responsibility to safeguard records. Her admission that the storage cabinet was defective, without her taking effective alternative measures, constitutes a failure in this duty, amounting to simple misconduct through neglect.
For a judge, liability is anchored on the principle of administrative supervision. Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that judges should diligently supervise court personnel to ensure the efficient and prompt dispatch of business. The loss occurred on Judge Layosa’s watch, and her claimed regular inventories and instructions were insufficient to prevent it. Her failure to establish or enforce an adequate system of record management that could have averted the loss constitutes a breach of her supervisory duty, also classified as simple misconduct. The Court considered mitigating factors for both respondents, such as their lack of bad faith, first-offender status, and Judge Layosa’s long government service. Consequently, Judge Layosa was fined P5,000.00, and Clerk III Buenaventura was suspended for twenty-one days without pay.