AM P 07 2372; (July, 2008) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-07-2372; July 23, 2008
Marichu T. Goforth, Complainant, vs. Tomas C. Huelar, Jr., Officer-in-Charge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, San Jose, Antique, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Marichu T. Goforth charged respondent Tomas C. Huelar, Jr., Officer-in-Charge of the RTC, with negligence for failing to promptly transmit court records to the Court of Appeals. On February 23, 1999, the RTC granted the Solicitor General’s notice of appeal and directed the respondent to transmit the records. The complainant made several personal follow-ups with the respondent, who assured immediate action. However, the records were only actually forwarded to the CA on September 23, 2002, a delay exceeding three years.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required the respondent to comment on the complaint. Respondent retired from service in February 2005 without complying. He eventually filed a comment, arguing the delay was attributable to his subordinates and that he acted upon learning of it. The OCA found him grossly negligent and recommended a fine of ₱10,000, considering his retirement.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Tomas C. Huelar, Jr. is administratively liable for gross negligence and defiance of court directives.
RULING
Yes, the respondent is guilty of gross negligence and indifference to the Court’s directives. Rule 41, Section 10(d) of the Rules of Court mandates clerks of court to transmit records to the appellate court within 30 days from the perfection of the appeal. The respondent’s delay of over three years constitutes a patent violation of this rule. His defense that the delay was caused by his subordinates is unavailing. As the officer-in-charge performing the functions of a clerk of court, he bears direct administrative responsibility for the efficient management of court records and the supervision of his staff. Their negligence is imputed to him.
Furthermore, his failure to file his comment despite repeated directives from the OCA demonstrated disrespect for judicial authority and compounded his administrative liability. While gross negligence is a grave offense punishable by dismissal, his retirement precludes this penalty. The Court, however, modified the OCA’s recommendation, imposing a fine of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (₱15,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits, emphasizing that court personnel must perform their duties with competence and efficiency to ensure the proper administration of justice.