Issue 23-1

January 2023

JUDGE, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT AND PROCESS SERVER

• Gross ignorance of the law or procedure; simple neglect of duty in the performance or
non-performance of official duties
At this juncture, it bears pointing out that during the pendency of this case, respondent judge
applied for and was granted optional retirement effective November 1, 2019. This, however, will
not preclude the Court from determining his administrative liability, pursuant to Section 2(2) of
Rule 140, as further amended, which provides that “once disciplinary proceedings have already
been instituted, the respondent’s supervening retirement or separation from service shall not
preclude or affect the continuation of the same x x x.” In this regard, case law instructs that “for
the Court to acquire jurisdiction over an administrative proceeding, the complaint must be filed
during the incumbency of the respondent public official or employee. This is because the filing
of an administrative case is predicated on the holding of a position or office in the government
service. However, once jurisdiction has attached, the same is not lost by the mere fact that the
public official or employee was no longer in office during the pendency of the case.” As such, the
Court shall now proceed with the determination of respondent judge’s administrative liability.

“[The] conception of good judges has been, and is, of men who have a mastery of the
principles of law, who discharge their duties in accordance with law. Judges are the visible
representations of law and justice, from whom the people draw the will and inclination to obey
the law. They are expected to be circumspect in the performance of their tasks, for it is their duty
to administer justice in a way that inspires confidence in the integrity of the justice system. Judges
should exhibit more than a cursory acquaintance with the statutes and procedural rules, and
should be diligent in keeping abreast with developments in law and jurisprudence. For, a judge
who is plainly ignorant of the law taints the noble office and great privilege vested in him. Thus,
a judge who disregards basic rules and settled jurisprudence may be held administratively liable
for gross ignorance of the law or procedure. x x x

xxxx

As the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) aptly found, respondent judge exhibited a
blatant and repeated disregard of even the most elementary rules of procedure in annulment
and declaration of nullity of marriages cases, as well as drugs cases. Particularly, insofar as
annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages cases are concerned, respondent judge
proceeded with the hearings thereof despite the presence of glaring, if not fatal, irregularities,
such as failing to acquire jurisdiction over the person of therein respondents due to improper
service of summonses, not having the required collusion report, and not waiting for the Notice
of Appearance of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). In this regard, the OCA is correct in
giving scant consideration to respondent judge’s defense that he merely relied on the report of
his staff regarding the validity of the service of summonses, considering that as a magistrate, he
is expected to have a strong grasp and understanding of the law and rules of procedure, and he
cannot pass the determination of the validity of summonses to rank-and-file personnel who are
not legal experts. On the other hand, insofar as drugs cases are concerned, records show that

Issue 23-1|January 2023 Page 1 of 7

respondent judge would resolve such cases even without making therein accused undergo the
required drug dependency examination.

Verily, respondent judge’s repeated breaches of the express provisions of A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC and A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC are so glaring, egregious, and thoughtless, and hence, are
already tantamount to bad faith and/or grave abuse of authority. As such, it is only proper that
he be found administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law or procedure under Section
14(j) of Rule 140, as further amended.

In addition to the foregoing, the OCA further noted that respondent judge should be found
administratively liable for [u]ndue [d]elay in [r]endering an [o]rder, pointing out that:
(a) in SPCA-T-XX, the motion for the issuance of writ of possession, which was received by the
RTC ABC Br. X on July 16, 2014, remains unresolved despite the Order dated May 4, 2015 setting
the case for possible settlement; and (b) Civil Case No. T-2XXX, an appealed case for ejectment is
still unresolved despite the filing of the memorandum for the defendant-appellant therein on
April 16, 2019. While the Court agrees with the OCA’s findings in this regard, it must be noted
that under Rule 140, as further amended, the administrative offense of “[u]ndue [d]elay in
[r]endering a [d]ecision or [o]rder, or in [t]ransmitting the [r]ecords of the [c]ase” has already
been subsumed, either under “[g]ross neglect of duty in the performance or non-performance of
official function” under Section 14(d), or “[s]imple neglect of duty in the performance or
non-performance of official functions” under Section 15(b), depending on the seriousness
thereof, pursuant to case law on gross and simple neglect of duty.

xxxx

The [b]ranch [c]lerk of [c]ourt is the administrative officer of the court and has control
and supervision over the branch. As correctly observed by the OCA, “she is in charge with the
efficient recording, filing[,] and management of court records, besides having administrative
supervision over court personnel. Having administrative supervision over the sheriff and the
process server, respondent branch clerk of court has the responsibility to monitor compliance
with the rules and regulations governing the performance of their respective duties.

Clearly, respondent branch clerk of court failed to give proper attention to a task expected
of her and was remiss in her duties as a [b]ranch [c]lerk of [c]ourt, i.e., failure to monitor returns
of summonses, her oversight in the indorsement of summonses to proper office of the clerk of
court having territorial jurisdiction over the respondents, and not flagging respondent judge
about the defective summonses, and absence of collusion reports and notice of appearance of
the OSG. Nevertheless, her act did not exhibit the want of slightest care or willfulness that would
make her liable for gross neglect. Rather, it was the result of her carelessness. At this point, it
must be stressed that the fact of respondent branch clerk of court’s supervening separation from
the Judiciary due to her appointment as City Prosecutor of X City, Cebu on August 29, 2019 will
not operate to moot the instant administrative disciplinary proceedings against her, in
accordance with Section 2(2) of Rule 140, as further amended as already discussed above.

Finally, as to respondent process server, case law instructs that a process server “serves
court processes such as subpoena, subpoena duces tecum, summons, court order and notices;
prepares and submits returns of service of court process; monitors messages and/or delivers
court mail matters received and dispatched by him; and performs such other duties as may be
assigned to him.” Thus, case law instructs that a process server who is unable to serve mail
matters should be found guilty of simple neglect of duty for failing “to give proper attention to a
required task”—such as what respondent process server did here. Verily, respondent process
server’s defense that she only followed the practice of former Sheriff A cannot be given any
credence as the violation or non-observance of laws and rules shall not be excused by disuse,
custom, or practice to the contrary.

Issue 23-1|January 2023 Page 2 of 7

 xxxx

As a final note, it must be emphasized that “those in the Judiciary serve as sentinels of
justice, and any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of
the Judiciary and the people’s confidence in it. The Institution demands the best possible
individuals in the service and it had never and will never tolerate nor condone any conduct which
would violate the norms of public accountability, and diminish, or even tend to diminish, the faith
of the people in the justice system. In this light, the Court will not hesitate to rid its ranks of
undesirables who undermine its efforts towards an effective and efficient administration of
justice, thus tainting its image in the eyes of the public,” as in this case. [A.M. No. RTJ-20-2582
(Formerly A.M. No. 20-06-74-RTC), August 16, 2022] <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/31442/>

JUDGE
• Gross misconduct for his submission of a false monthly report and docket inventory; undue
delay in rendering decisions; and making untruthful statements in his certificates of service
The foregoing observations of the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) are well taken.

Indeed, in the Boston case, respondent judge was found administratively liable for [g]ross
[i]gnorance of the [l]aw and [u]ndue [d]elay in [r]endering an [o]rder for which the Court sternly
warned him that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
However, the Court finds valid the observation of the JIB that the Boston case did not involve
corruption, which would otherwise damage the integrity of the Judiciary which respondent judge
represents.

Similarly, the Court finds that respondent judge’s infractions in the present case—(1) the
serious offense of gross misconduct for his submission of a false monthly report and docket
inventory, (2) the less serious offense of undue delay in rendering decisions, and (3) the less
serious offense of making untruthful statements in his certificates of service—likewise do not
involve corruption or fraud in the service. Further, the Court agrees with the JIB that respondent
judge should be accorded the benefit of the doubt considering the absence of clear evidence that
he deliberately and knowingly falsified his monthly report and docket inventory.

xxxx

The Court notes that respondent judge had served in the government service for almost
40 years and 17 years of which were devoted to the Judiciary. Since 2013, respondent judge had
suffered multiple lingering illnesses which constrained him to apply for early retirement in 2019.
His demonstration of remorse, along with his medical condition, compels the Court to mitigate
respondent judge’s penalty.

In several occasions, the Court has applied the doctrine of compassionate justice or
judicial clemency to accord monetary benefits to erring judges and court personnel for
humanitarian reasons.

xxxx

Considering that respondent judge had already retired from the service, the only
alternative left for the Court is to impose the penalty of [f]ine. The Court deems the penalty of
[f]ine in the amount of P400,000 to be proper to answer for the following infractions: (1) gross
misconduct for his submission of a false monthly report and docket inventory; (2) undue delay in
rendering decisions; and (3) making untruthful statements in his certificates of service. [A.M. No.

Issue 23-1|January 2023 Page 3 of 7

RTJ-16-2463 (Formerly A.M. No. 16-05-110-RTC), August 30, 2022]
<https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/31446/>

CLERK OF COURT, CASH CLERK AND CLERK

• Gross misconduct for his submission of a false monthly report and docket inventory; undue
delay in rendering decisions; and making untruthful statements in his certificates of service
In no uncertain terms, the Constitution provides that “a public office is a public trust” and “public
officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost
responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency.” This clause applies equally to all public officers,
including court employees such as those involved in the present administrative case.

xxxx

Respondent clerk of court

Respondent clerk of court’s guilt for [g]ross [m]isconduct, [g]ross [n]eglect of [d]uty, and
[m]alversation of [p]ublic [f]unds has been proven by more than substantial evidence, which
includes his admission that he indeed failed to account for the shortage computed by the audit
team.

xxxx

Notably, gross misconduct under civil service laws is different from that under Rule 140
of the Rules of Court, Section 14(a), which expressly refers to “violations of the Code of Judicial
Conduct or of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.” In order to elevate the violation as gross
misconduct, the same must involve “the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law
or flagrant disregard of established rules that must be manifest and established by substantial
evidence.” Hence, in this case, reference to the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel (CCCP) is in
order.

In this regard, We find respondent clerk of court to have violated Canon 1 of the CCCP,
which provides, in part:

CANON I
FIDELITY TO DUTY

SECTION 1. Court personnel shall not use their official position to secure unwarranted
benefits, privileges or exemptions for themselves or for others.

xxxx

SEC. 5. Court personnel shall use the resources, property and funds under their official
custody in a judicious manner and solely in accordance with the prescribed statutory and
regulatory guidelines or procedures.

Further, respondent clerk of court’s violation of the foregoing Canon involves clear
elements of corruption and flagrant disregard of established rules. We also take into account the
considerable amount involved in the present case and respondent clerk of court’s apparent lack
of remorse and willingness to cooperate in the investigation conducted by the Executive Judge
and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), as shown by respondent clerk of court’s
one-page response to the charges against him.

Clearly, therefore, respondent clerk of court is guilty of [g]ross [m]isconduct.

Issue 23-1|January 2023 Page 4 of 7

 As for gross neglect of duty, the same is also denominated as a serious charge under
Section 14(d) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Gross neglect of duty “refers to negligence
characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where
there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with a conscious
indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected.”

xxxx

We quote with approval the OCA’s disposition of the administrative case insofar as
respondent clerk of court is concerned:

As the accountable officer of the OCC, RTC, X City, in charge of the collection, deposit and
safekeeping of court funds, respondent clerk of court was indeed remiss in the
performance of his sworn duty. Worse, the team found that he was the one who misused
the court’s funds and not his subordinates. The numerous instances of malversation of
the court’s funds were confirmed by the testimonies of some witnesses pointing to him
as the sole culprit of the grand theft. The team surmised that this was the reason why he
did not bother to contradict the findings of the audit team. Thus, [We] need not delve
deeply into all his nefarious activities as they have been conclusively established in the
audit findings and in the investigation conducted by Executive Judge A. His liability is
without a modicum of uncertainty as he himself did not refute the allegations against him,
and without shame, he betrayed his own people in the end, desperately trying to show
that his failure to remit his collections was the result of his full trust and confidence on
his staff from the Cash Section. Clearly, he is guilty of serious dishonesty, gross neglect of
duty and grave misconduct and should be dismissed from the service and be also
criminally charged for malversation of public funds and graft and corruption.

Indeed, respondent clerk of court was notified of all the proceedings in this case, from
the findings of the audit team, the investigation conducted by Executive Judge A, to the findings
of the OCA, but all he could muster to refute the allegations against him was a one-page
“memorandum” expressly admitting the wrongdoings charged against him, albeit characterizing
the same as negligence, and asking the Court for its understanding and compassion.

xxxx

Without a doubt, malversation of public funds is a crime involving moral turpitude. As

correctly found by the OCA, respondent clerk of court has been shown, by substantial evidence,
to have committed the crime of malversation of public funds. We hold, therefore, that
respondent clerk of court is liable for violation of Section 14(f), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.

xxxx

Here, respondent clerk of court committed similar actions, which, making matters worse,
involve a much larger amount than that which respondent clerk of court [in A.M. No. P-21-4102
(Formerly A.M. No. 18-04-42-MTC)] was found liable for. As such, there is no other recourse but
to hold respondent clerk of court liable to restitute the amount of P18,458,356.64 and to dismiss
him from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits, except accrued leave credits, if any, and
perpetual disqualification from reemployment in any government agency or instrumentality,
including any government-owned and government-controlled corporation or government
financial institution.

xxxx

Issue 23-1|January 2023 Page 5 of 7

Respondent cash clerk
The OCA concurred with Executive Judge A’s finding that respondent cash clerk is guilty of [g]ross
[n]eglect of [d]uty and [d]ishonesty, and recommended the penalty of dismissal from the service,
with the accompanying administrative disabilities relating to benefits and disqualification from
reemployment in government.

While respondent cash clerk was able to explain the audit team’s and Executive Judge A’s
initial suspicions that her lifestyle indicated her involvement in or benefit from the amounts
misappropriated by respondent clerk of court, the OCA still found her liable for her failure to
reflect her condominium unit and vehicles in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth
(SALN) and, more importantly, for her inaction and silence on the malfeasance of respondent
clerk of court.

We agree that respondent cash clerk is guilty of [g]ross [n]eglect of [d]uty under Section
14(d), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Respondent cash clerk’s acts of acceding to requests of
respondent clerk of court to not make monthly reports and consciously and willingly allowing
respondent clerk of court to take possession of funds from her collections, without a doubt,
constitute [g]ross [n]eglect of [d]uty.

However, We find her also guilty not just of [d]ishonesty, but of [s]erious [d]ishonesty
under Section 14(c), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.

xxxx

In this case, respondent cash clerk is guilty of concealment of the truth relating to
respondent clerk of court’s criminal acts, showing a clear lack of integrity on respondent cash
clerk’s character as a public servant. Her dishonesty is also clearly qualified by more than one of
the circumstances enumerated above, namely: that the dishonest act causes serious damage and
grave prejudice to the government; that the dishonest act was committed several times or on
various occasions; and that the respondent cash clerk gravely abused her authority to commit
the dishonest act.

The record shows that respondent cash clerk knew of respondent clerk of court’s
nefarious deeds even before the audit was ordered in 2010. To make matters worse, there had
been no threats from respondent clerk of court for respondent cash clerk to keep silent; instead,
respondent cash clerk kept silent of her own accord. The record also shows that other court
officers, including respondent clerks B and C, have called respondent cash clerk’s attention to the
irregularities in the financial records of the court; and yet, respondent cash clerk, for an
unreasonably long period of time, still did not report the same to the proper authorities. Verily,
these circumstances qualify her dishonesty to [s]erious [d]ishonesty.

Furthermore, respondent cash clerk’s gross neglect of her duties and responsibilities and
her dishonesty in performing her tasks as cash clerk allowed or contributed to respondent clerk
of court’s nefarious deeds that resulted in a total shortage of P18,458,356.64. As such, and
following the Court’s pronouncements in Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty.
Dureza-Aldevera and Office of the Court Administrator v. Bernardino, in which the Court held
accountable officers such as cash clerks jointly and severally liable with the responsible clerk of
court for shortages, We also find respondent cash clerk jointly and severally liable with
respondent clerk of court to restitute the amount of P18,458,356.64.

xxxx

Issue 23-1|January 2023 Page 6 of 7

Respondent clerk B
With respect to respondent clerk B, Executive Judge A found her guilty of simple neglect of duty
and recommended the penalty of reprimand, reasoning that “her silence after becoming aware
of the activity of [respondent clerk of court] is questionable, but the [c]ourt found no proof that
she benefitted from the malversed funds.” x x x

xxxx

While We agree that a fine should be imposed against respondent clerk B, We do not
wholly concur with the OCA’s reasoning, especially in view of the Court’s findings against
respondent cash clerk and with the amount of the fine.

xxxx

Respondent clerk B’s silence despite knowledge of respondent clerk of court’s

malfeasance undoubtedly caused damage and prejudice to the government to the extent of the
total accountabilities of respondent clerk of court.

As such, respondent clerk B is guilty of [s]erious [d]ishonesty under Section 14(c), Rule
140 of the Rules of Court. Just like respondent cash clerk, respondent clerk B also had personal
knowledge of respondent clerk of court’s infractions and chose to keep silent on the matter by
not reporting the same to the Court or to Executive Judge A.

However, the extent of respondent clerk B’s liability is not on the same plane as
respondent cash clerk, whose serious dishonesty was coupled with gross neglect of duty and
grave abuse of authority, consisting of purposely failing to make monthly reports and allowing
respondent clerk of court to take possession of the court’s collections. Further, the record shows
that respondent clerk B only receives instructions from respondent cash clerk. The record also
shows that respondent clerk B prodded respondent cash clerk to report respondent clerk of
court’s wrongdoings. To be clear, while this does not excuse respondent clerk B from not
reporting the anomalies plaguing the court, We nonetheless find this proper to consider the
extent of respondent clerk B’s liability only under the circumstances of the present case.

All these considered, and following Section 17(1)(c), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court on
imposing a fine even for findings of guilt for a serious charge, the Court finds the imposition of a
fine to be just and proper under the circumstances. However, following the same section cited
above, the fine for a serious charge should be more than P100,000 but not more than P200,000.
Hence, respondent clerk B is fined in the amount of P120,000, with a warning that a similar
offense in the future will be dealt with more severely. [A.M. No. P-15-3398 (Formerly A.M. No.
15-09-320-RTC), July 12, 2022] <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/31939/>

Issue 23-1|January 2023 Page 7 of 7