A.M. No. P-01-1486. February 21, 2002. JUDGE LORETO D. DE LA VICTORIA, complainant, vs. HON. LEOPOLDO V. CAÑETE, formerly Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Cebu City and now Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Lapu-Lapu City, and TEOFILO M. MENDEZ, formerly Court Interpreter, same court, respondents.
FACTS

Presiding Judge Loreto D. de la Victoria filed a complaint against his court interpreter, Teofilo M. Mendez, for failing to produce missing case exhibits entrusted to his custody. Mendez had gone on leave in 1994 due to a stroke and never returned, later applying for disability retirement. His retirement was stalled due to the missing exhibits. The matter was referred for investigation. Respondent Leopoldo V. Cañete, then Branch Clerk of Court, identified specific missing exhibits from several appealed cases and explained that Mendez, as interpreter for 30 years, had historically been given custody of exhibits even before Cañete’s appointment in 1988. Mendez failed to submit an inventory or locate the exhibits as directed.
The Court subsequently directed Cañete to make a full inventory and Mendez to comment. Both failed to comply. Cañete, by then appointed as a judge, explained in his comment that he believed the duty to inventory devolved to his successor upon his appointment. Mendez had retired in 1994, prior to the docketing of the administrative complaint.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Teofilo M. Mendez and Leopoldo V. Cañete should be held administratively liable.

RULING

The complaint against Mendez is dismissed for being moot and academic, as he had already retired from service before the complaint was formally docketed, thus placing him beyond the Court’s administrative supervision. However, this dismissal is without prejudice to the filing of appropriate criminal or civil actions for the loss of the exhibits.
Respondent Cañete is found administratively liable and is REPRIMANDED. As the Branch Clerk of Court, he was the officer primarily responsible for the safekeeping of all court records, including exhibits, pursuant to the Rules of Court. His duty was non-delegable and did not cease upon his appointment to the judiciary. His failure to ensure the proper inventory and safekeeping of the exhibits constituted gross neglect of duty. His assumption that his successor would handle the Court’s direct order was unreasonable; he should have formally informed the Court of his new appointment and inability to comply. His inaction contributed to the loss of vital court evidence, undermining the integrity of judicial proceedings.