AM P 16 3604; (June, 2017) (Digest)
A.M. No. P-16-3604. June 28, 2017. HEIRS OF DAMASO OCHEA, represented by MIGUEL KILANTANG, Complainant, vs. ATTY. ANDREA P. MARATAS, Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 53, Regional Trial Court, Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Miguel Kilantang, representing the Heirs of Damaso Ochea, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Andrea P. Maratas, Branch Clerk of Court, for neglect of duty. The complaint stemmed from Civil Case No. 2936-L, which was submitted for decision in 1997. Despite several motions from the plaintiffs and personal follow-ups, then Presiding Judge Benedicto Cobarde failed to render a decision before his compulsory retirement in December 2010. Kilantang alleged that Atty. Maratas, who had assured them the judge would decide before retiring, failed to properly indorse the case records or apprise the designated assisting judge, Judge Mario Trinidad, of its pendency, contributing to a 16-year delay.
Atty. Maratas denied the accusations. She asserted that a draft decision was prepared and submitted to Judge Cobarde, and her assurances to the plaintiffs were based on her personal belief. She claimed to have indorsed the case to Judge Trinidad, as evidenced by certain monthly court reports, and maintained she was never remiss in her duties, apologizing for the delay but attributing it to factors beyond her control.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Andrea P. Maratas is administratively liable for neglect of duty in connection with the undue delay in the disposition of Civil Case No. 2936-L.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Maratas is liable for Simple Neglect of Duty. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee, resulting from carelessness or indifference. The Court found that while Atty. Maratas submitted documents listing the case, she failed to provide conclusive proof that she properly indorsed the case to the assisting judge for appropriate action or made a proper turnover following Judge Cobarde’s retirement. An investigation also revealed her failure to present the court’s complete monthly reports for the fourteen years following the case’s submission for decision.
As Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Maratas had a duty to take necessary steps to ensure cases were acted upon, including maintaining a Court Journal, preparing calendars of cases submitted for decision, and noting the expiration of the decision period. Her failure to diligently perform these specific administrative responsibilities contributed to the inordinate delay. The Court emphasized that court personnel must perform their duties with the highest degree of efficiency, as their conduct directly mirrors the court’s integrity. Considering it was her first offense and her length of service, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00) with a stern warning.