A.M. No. P-1343. December 29, 1980.
PABLO GARCIA, complainant, vs. JOSE S. CATBAGAN, Branch Clerk of Court, Court of First Instance, Branch XIV, Caloocan City, and EMMANUEL BANTUG, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Pablo Garcia charged respondent Jose S. Catbagan, Branch Clerk of Court, with infidelity in the custody of documents for allegedly delaying for over two years the transmittal of the records of Criminal Case No. 53398 to the Court of Appeals. The transmittal was ordered on August 14, 1973, but the records were only forwarded on September 11, 1975. Garcia alleged that Catbagan kept the records idle, and only acted after Garcia’s own investigation and follow-up.
In his defense, Catbagan explained he signed the transmittal letter on August 28, 1973, and delivered the records to his subordinate, Emmanuel Bantug, the clerk-in-charge for criminal cases. Bantug then assigned the task of physically dispatching the records to another clerk, Rustica Geronimo. Tragically, Geronimo met a sudden death due to a vehicular accident before she could complete the transmittal. The records were subsequently misplaced among archived files and were only rediscovered in September 1975 after a thorough search prompted by Garcia’s inquiries.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Jose S. Catbagan and Emmanuel Bantug are administratively liable for the delay in transmitting the court records.

RULING

Yes, the respondents are administratively liable for negligence. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Investigating Executive Judge. While there was no evidence of intentional misconduct, the Court found both respondents guilty of dereliction of duty through gross negligence. The legal logic centers on the non-delegable duty of supervision and the standard of diligence required of court personnel.
As Branch Clerk of Court, Catbagan bore the ultimate responsibility for the safekeeping and proper transmission of court records under his custody. His duty did not end with merely signing a transmittal letter and delegating the task. He was obligated to exercise reasonable supervision to ensure the order was carried out. The unexplained two-year gap, from the clerk Geronimo’s death in 1973 to the complainant’s follow-up in 1975, demonstrated a severe lack of a functional monitoring system. Catbagan failed to institute or follow up on a procedure to verify the completion of critical tasks, especially after being apprised of his clerk’s death.
Similarly, respondent Bantug, as the immediate supervisor in charge of criminal cases, shared this responsibility. He was directly tasked with ensuring the records were sent and received the transmittal letter back from Geronimo. His failure to confirm the action and to account for the records constituted a breach of his duty. The Court emphasized that such apathy and lack of diligence undermine public trust in the administration of justice. Consequently, both respondents were found guilty of negligence and fined an amount equivalent to one month’s salary, with a stern warning.