…N BANC

[ A.M. No. P-19-4021 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 15-4410-P],

January 15, 2020 ]

HON. CARMELITA SARNO-DAVIN, PRESIDING JUDGE,

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DIGOS, DAVAO DEL SUR, BRANCH
19, COMPLAINANT, VS. ROSALITA L. QUIRANTE, CLERK III,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DIGOS, DAVAO DEL SUR, BRANCH
19, RESPONDENT.

DECISION
PER CURIAM:
This is a Complaint[1] filed by Presiding Judge Carmelita Sarno-
Davin, (complainant), Regional Trial Court of Digos, Davao del Sur,
Branch 19 (RTC) against Rosalita L. Quirante (respondent), Clerk
III, of the same court before the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA), for Dishonesty, Misconduct, and Neglect of Duty.
Antecedents

Complainant alleged that sometime in the 3rd week of May 2014,

Mercedita P. Dela Sierra (Dela Sierra), secretary of the defense
counsel in Criminal Case Nos. 240(06) and 241(06), both
entitled People of the Philippines v. Alviola, et al., approached Atty.
Louise Marie Therese B. Escobido (Atty. Escobido), Clerk of Court of
the RTC. Dela Sierra sought to substitute cash bonds for the
property bonds that were posted with the RTC for the accused's bail
therein. The property bonds were constituted over several lands,
particularly, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-161470 and
T-161471, and Tax Declaration Nos. E-G-G-25928 and
02-00002-00454 and 02-00009-004987 (subject titles and tax
declarations).[2]

However, when Atty. Escobido checked the case records, she could
not find the subject titles and tax declarations. Thus, she inquired
from respondent, who was in charge of the records of the criminal
cases, regarding the whereabouts of the titles. Respondent denied
any knowledge of the titles and tax declarations. Thus, Atty.
Escobido informed complainant of the situation. Complainant
initiated an investigation on the matter. Respondent eventually
admitted that she delivered the subject titles and tax declarations to
Atty. Leonardo Suario (Atty. Suario), the accused's former counsel in
the said criminal cases. When asked to explain in writing,
respondent stated in her Letter dated June 2, 2014, to wit:
To be honest, your Honor, the late Atty. Leonardo Suario asked
me to help his client, that's why I used the tax declaration of my
properties to be used as the property bond for all the accused and in
order to protect me, I just reflected the title numbers of the property
which was submitted by the accused to Atty. Suario in the Order of
release, so that the accused will be compelled to make good of their
undertakings, because the accused were not personally known by the
undersigned. I also did not reflect that tax declaration of the property
in my name in the Order, because per computation the amount of the
two (2) property bonds is already more than the required bailbond.[3]
Complainant further alleged that after the discovery of the
bonding anomaly, she ordered an inventory of the RTC's records. The
inventory uncovered that respondent failed to transmit to the Court
of Appeals (CA) the records of three (3) criminal cases that had long
been completed, namely, Criminal Case No. 309(00), entitled People
v. Buenaflor, Criminal Case No. 70(05), entitled  People v. Rodrigo
Esma, and Criminal Case No. 66(05), entitled People v. Enciso.[4]

When directed to explain, respondent shifted the blame to the court

stenographers who were no longer connected with the RTC. She
alleged that they failed to transcribe their stenographic notes.
Respondent also blamed the party litigants because they purportedly
failed to pay for the photocopying of the records.[5]

Further investigations showed that respondent apparently concealed

the fact that the accused filed, in Criminal Case Nos. 70(05) and
66(05), separate notices of appeal and that the said appeals were
given due course by the RTC. However, due to the concealment of
respondent, Atty. Escobido erroneously issued a "Certificate of Non-
Appeal" in Criminal Case No. 66(05).[6]

Thus, complainant charges respondent with dishonesty and

misconduct for unlawfully taking the subject titles in Criminal Case
Nos. 240(06) and 241(06) without authorization from the RTC.
Complainant also charges respondent with neglect of duty because
she failed to transmit the records of Criminal Case Nos. 309(00),
70(05), and 66(05). She even concealed the timely separate notices of
appeal filed by the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 70(05) and 66(05).

In her Comment,[7]   respondent admitted taking the subject titles

and tax declarations from the case records without any authority and
delivering them to the office of the late Atty. Suario. However, she
denied that her actions were compelled by any sinister motive or
corruption and, instead, asserted that she did it out of compassion for
the accused, who are mostly farm laborers.[8]

As to the charge of neglect of duty, she apologized and attributed it to

her inability to complete the compilation of the Transcript of
Stenographic Notes (TSN) of the witnesses and secure the signature
of the former court stenographers in the duplicate TSN. She claimed
that it was the usual practice in the office for the appellants to
shoulder the expenses for the reproduction of the four (4) sets of
certified true copies of the TSN. However, she encountered a
dilemma when the counsel for the accused told her that his clients
were indigent. Thus, she could not charge them for the said fees. It
was only when she brought the matter with Atty. Escobido and
complainant that the records of the criminal cases were finally
transmitted to the CA in Cagayan de Oro (CA Cagayan de Oro).[9]

With respect to Criminal Case No. 66(05), where a "Certificate of

Non-Appeal" was erroneously issued by Atty. Escobido, respondent
defended that she honestly believed that there was no notice of
appeal filed in that case. As it turned out, the notice of appeal was
inadvertently attached to the records of a different case. She
attributed her lapses to her old age and her preoccupation with
several domestic issues.[10]

Respondent begged the Court's compassion for her transgressions.

She prayed that her twenty-five (25) years of service in the Judiciary
and the fact that she had not been previously involved in any
irregularity be taken into account by the Court.[11]

Meanwhile, the records of the Docket and Clearance Division of the

OCA showed that respondent had two previous administrative
complaints against her. In A.M. No. P-94-1010,[12] respondent was
charged with gross ignorance of the law and negligence in the
performance of duty and was reprimanded by the Court. In another
case, A.M. No. P-16-3461,[13] respondent was found administratively
liable for simple neglect of duty and was reprimanded by the Court
with a stem warning that the commission of the same or similar acts
in the future shall be dealt with more harshly.[14]

OCA Report and Recommendation

In its Report and Recommendation[15] dated October 24, 2019, the

OCA found that respondent committed grave misconduct and simple
neglect of duty. It held that respondent's acts of taking the subject
titles and tax declarations in custodia legis and delivering them to
the late Atty. Suario are highly improper and constitute grave
misconduct. It also found that respondent even attempted to conceal
her transgressions by not reflecting in the court records that she took
the said documents. The OCA also held that respondent's failure to
transmit the records of the case to the CA Cagayan de Oro
constituted neglect of duty. However, it only found respondent guilty
of simple neglect of duty because there was no evidence that such
failure was willful and intentional on her part.[16]

The OCA recommended that respondent be administratively

penalized for the most serious offense, grave misconduct, that carries
a penalty of dismissal from service. It disregarded the plea of
leniency of respondent because this was her third infraction. She was
previously administratively held liable in the two cases of A.M. No.
P-94-1010 and A.M. No. P-16-3461. Thus, the extreme penalty of
dismissal must be imposed upon respondent.[17]
The Court's Ruling

The Court adopts and accepts the Report and Recommendation of the
OCA, with modification on the administrative offenses committed.

In order to sustain a finding of culpability for the administrative

offenses, substantial evidence is required, or such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion. The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when
there is reasonable ground to believe that a person is responsible for
the misconduct complained of.[18]

Grave Misconduct

Misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of

action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by
the public officer. It is intentional wrongdoing or deliberate violation
of a rule of law or standard of behavior and to constitute an
administrative offense, the misconduct should relate to or be
connected with the performance of the official functions and duties of
a public officer. In order to differentiate gross misconduct from
simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate
the law, and not a mere error of judgment, or flagrant disregard of
established rule, must be manifest in the former.[19]

In the Matter of the Loss of One (1) Tamaya Transit, An Exhibit in

Criminal Case No. 193,[20] a court employee took out a wristwatch
from custodia legis, which was a case exhibit. The Court found him
guilty of dishonesty and grave misconduct and directed his dismissal
from the service with forfeiture of his retirement benefits and with
prejudice to reinstatement in any branch of the government.
Recently, in Zarate-Fernandez v. Lovendino,[21] the Court found a
court aide liable for grave misconduct because he unlawfully took the
drug specimens stored in the court's vault, which were exhibits in a
pending case. For tarnishing the image and integrity of the bench,
the employee's name was perpetually stripped from the rolls of the
men and women of the Judiciary.

In this case, the Court finds that the complaint sufficiently proved
with substantial evidence that respondent committed grave
misconduct. Respondent admitted that she removed the subject titles
and tax declarations as property bonds in Criminal Case Nos.
240(06) and 241(06) and delivered these official court documents to
Atty. Suario, former counsel of accused. These documents are
under custodia legis and should not have been taken by any court
employee for personal reasons and without authorization from the
court. Respondent even concealed her acts by making it appear that
the property bonds of the accused were intact. She also admitted that
she tampered with the RTC Order dated October 5, 2006, by not
reflecting that the tax declarations of her properties were used for
the property bonds of these cases to hide her transgressions.

The explanation she gave for unlawfully taking;the subject titles and
tax declarations in custodia legis is utterly insufficient. She claimed
that she delivered the said documents in order to help the accused,
who are mostly labor farmers. However, this is completely
unsubstantiated arid it is absolutely unjustified to tamper with court
records without proper authority. Thus, respondent's taking of the
court documents is. a grave misconduct because it is an unlawful
behavior or intentional wrongdoing; and there was a clear intent to
violate the law when she took great steps to conceal her offenses.

Gross Neglect of Duty

The Court, however, modifies the finding of the OCA of simple

neglect of duty against respondent to gross neglect of duty.

Neglect of duty is the failure of a public official or employee to give

attention to a task expected of him. The public official or employee of
the Judiciary responsible for such act or omission cannot escape the
disciplinary power of this Court. Simple neglect of duty is contrasted
from gross neglect. Gross neglect of duty refers to negligence
characterized by the glaring want of care; by acting or omitting to act
in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently, but
willfully and intentionally; or by acting with a conscious indifference
to consequences with respect to other persons who may be affected. It
is such neglect which, from the gravity of the case or the frequency of
instances, becomes so serious in its character as to endanger or
threaten the public welfare. It does not necessarily include willful
neglect or intentional official wrongdoing.[22]

In Absin v. Montalla,[23] the Court ruled that the failure to submit

the records of the case, particularly the TSN, within the period
prescribed under Administrative Circular No. 24-90, constitutes
gross neglect of duty. The court employee therein, who repeatedly
failed to submit the required TSN, was dismissed from service.

Here, the Court finds that respondent committed gross neglect of

duty. Complainant alleged that when an inventory of the RTC cases
was conducted, it was discovered that respondent failed to transmit
to the CA the records of three (3) criminal cases that had long been
completed, namely, Criminal Case No. 309(00), 70(05), and 66(05).
Respondent shifted the blame to the litigants, who were purportedly
required to pay for the four (4) duplicate copies of the TSN before the
records could be forwarded. However, she could not cite any official
rule for the same. As long as the accused has timely filed and served
the notice of appeal, and it was given due course, then respondent, as
the clerk for the criminal cases, is duty-bound to complete the records
of the case and forward the same to the CA. Further, respondent
cannot attribute her negligence to the former stenographers because,
aside from it being unsupported that they failed to sign the TSN,
their signatures could have easily been secured if respondent
prepared the records and immediately raised the matter with her
superior.

In addition, respondent failed to record the notices of appeal filed

separately by the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 70(05) and 66(05)
even though the said appeals were already given due course by the
RTC. Through sheer negligence, she set aside such crucial court
submissions that affect the litigants' right to appeal and review their
criminal cases. Due to the irresponsibility of respondent in failing to
acknowledge the notices of appeal, Atty. Escobido erroneously issued
a "Certificate of Non-Appeal" in Criminal Case No. 66(05). The
prejudice caused to the accused in failing to institute their appeal
was due to the negligence of respondent.

Evidently, due to the number and gravity of the negligent acts

committed by respondent in her duty as clerk in the criminal cases of
the RTC, there is substantial evidence proving her administratively
liable for gross neglect of duty. Her neglect was so serious in
character that it endangers or threatens the public welfare,
particularly, the right to appeal of the litigants.

Proper penalty
Section 46, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules of Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service (RRACCS) classifies grave misconduct and gross
neglect of duty as grave offenses punishable by dismissal from the
service even on the first violation.[24] Section 52(a) of the RRACCS
states that the penalty of dismissal shall carry with it the
cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and
perpetual disqualification from holding public office and bar from
taking civil service examinations.[25]

Respondent pleads that the Court exercise its compassion in

imposing the penalty against her and to consider her twenty-five (25)
years of service in the Judiciary wherein she had not been previously
involved in any irregularity.

However, a review of respondent's administrative records shows that

the present case is her third infraction. In the first administrative
case filed against her, docketed as A.M. OCA IPI No. P-94-1010,
respondent was charged with gross ignorance of the law and
negligence in the performance of duty and was reprimanded by the
Court. In the second administrative case, entitled   Mabaga v.
Quirante,[26] respondent was found guilty of simple neglect of duty
and was reprimanded. Nevertheless, the Court sternly warned her
that commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be
dealt with more harshly.

Accordingly, the Court cannot appreciate respondent's years of

service to mitigate her liability due to the gravity of her offenses and
the past transgressions she had committed. Time and again, the
Court warned respondent that she will be disciplined harshly if she
committed similar or graver offenses. However, she did not heed the
Court's warning, thus, the ultimate penalty of dismissal must be
imposed against her.

No less than the Constitution mandates that all public officers and
employees should serve with responsibility, integrity and efficiency,
for public office is a public trust. No other office in the government
service exacts a greater demand for moral righteousness and
uprightness from an employee than the Judiciary. Thus, this Court
has often stated that the conduct of court personnel, from the
presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must be beyond reproach and
must be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to
let them be free from any suspicion that may taint the Judiciary. The
Court condemns any conduct, act, or omission on the part of all those
involved in the administration of justice which would violate the
norm of public accountability and diminish the faith of the people in
the Judiciary.[27]
WHEREFORE, Rosalita L. Quirante, Clerk III, of the Regional Trial
Court of Digos, Davao del Sur, Branch 19, is   GUILTY   of Grave
Misconduct and Gross Neglect of Duty. She is   DISMISSED   from
service with cancellation of civil service eligibility, perpetual
disqualification from holding public office, and forfeiture of
retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits.

SO ORDERED.

Peralta, C. J., Leonen, Caguioa, Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando,

Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, Delos Sanots,
and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
Perlas-Bernabe, J., on official leave.
A. Reyes, Jr., J., on official leave.

NOTICE OF JUDGMENT

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that on January 15, 2020 a Decision, copy

attached herewith, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-
entitled administrative matter, the original of which was received by
this Office on February 18, 2020 at 4:20 p.m.

[1] Rollo, pp. 1-4.

[2] Id. at 53.

[3] Id. at 13.

[4] Id. at 54.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at 43-51.

[8] Id. at 44.

[9] Id. at 46-47.

[10] Id. at 47.
 [11] Id. at 48.

[12] Dated October 19, 1994; See the Unsigned Resolution in Mabaga

v. Quirante, A.M. No. P-16-3461, January 10, 2018.

[13] Mabaga v. Quirante, supra.

[14] Rollo, p. 55.

[15] Id. at 53-58.

[16] Id. at 55-57.

[17] Id. at 57.

[18] Masion v. Valderrama, A.M. No. P-18-3869, October 8, 2019.

[19] Duque v. Calpo, A.M. No. P-16-3505, January 22, 2019.

[20] 200 Phil. 82 (1982).

[21] A.M. No. P-16-3530, March 6, 2018, 857 SCRA 420.

[22] Malubay v. Guevara, A.M. No. P-18-3791, January 29, 2019.

[23] 667 Phil. 560 (2011).

[24] Malubay v. Guevara, supra note 22; Duque v. Calpo, supra note

19.

[25] Duque v. Calpo, supra.

[26] Mabaga v. Quirante, supra note 12.

[27] Office of the Court Administrator v. Silongan, 793 Phil. 667, 681

(2016).

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.