AM 04 8 198 METC; (January, 2008) (Digest)
A.M. No. 04-8-198-MeTC; January 31, 2008
RE: REPORT OF JUDGE MARIA ELISA SEMPIO DIY, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, QUEZON CITY, ABOUT THE LOSS OF CERTAIN VALUABLES AND ITEMS WITHIN THE COURT PREMISES
FACTS
This administrative case originated from a report by Judge Maria Elisa Sempio Diy concerning the loss of a .38 caliber gun, an object evidence in a pending criminal case, and a cellular phone allegedly left in her courtroom. An investigation by Executive Judge Natividad Dizon revealed that Clerk of Court Celestina D. Rota refused to accept custody of the gun from the criminal docket clerk, Ma. Theresa Fernandez, instructing her instead to place it inside a steel cabinet with a defective lock. The loss was discovered during a scheduled hearing. The cellular phone’s loss could not be substantiated as the claimant showed no interest in the case. During the investigation, Rota subsequently found and submitted the missing gun in 2006.
ISSUE
Whether Clerk of Court Celestina D. Rota is administratively liable for the loss of the court exhibit.
RULING
Yes, Rota is guilty of Simple Neglect of Duty. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the investigating judge and the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). As the official custodian of court exhibits, a non-adjudicative function explicitly mandated by the Manual for Clerks of Court, Rota exhibited sheer negligence. Her refusal to accept formal custody of the firearm, a lethal piece of evidence, and her instruction to merely store it in an insecure location constituted a failure to perform her duties with the required diligence and competence. The Court noted this was not Rota’s first offense of negligence. While the prescribed penalty for a second offense of simple neglect is dismissal, the Court tempered its judgment with mercy considering the subsequent recovery of the gun and for humanitarian reasons. Instead of dismissal, the Court imposed a three-month suspension without pay and a stern warning. The charge regarding the cellular phone was deemed unsubstantiated and required no further action.