An administrative complaint for neglect of duty was filed against respondent, a branch clerk of court, for having allegedly forwarded to the executive judge for raffling, Criminal Case No. 156706 six days later in violation of Circular No. 3 of this Court dated April 26, 1975. The delay resulted in the detention of accused Guevarra, complainant herein, for six days. In his answer, respondent alleged that he had to transmit the record of the case to the cashier to enable the two co-accused of complainant who pleaded guilty. to pay the fine. That circumstance caused the delay which was not deliberate and was allegedly due to oversight.

The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of inexcusable neglect of duty in not complying with the requirement of Circular No. 3 for the immediate transmittal of the record of complainant’s case to the executive judge for raffling, resulting in a delay prejudicial to the accused. Respondent was ordered to pay a fine equivalent to his compensation for twenty days and warned that a more severe penalty will be imposed upon him for commission of another irregularity.

Respondent fined.

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; COURT SUPERVISION; CIRCULAR NO 3 DATED APRIL 24, 1975; IMMEDIATE TRANSMITTAL OF RECORD FOR RAFFLING; DELAY CONSTITUTES INEXCUSABLE NEGLECT OF DUTY; CASE AT BAR. — Where respondent branch clerk of court, forwarded Criminal Case No. 136706 to the executive judge of the city court six days later resulting in complainant’s detention for six days while in his answer, respondent alleged that the record of the case was taken to the cashier’s office so that complainant’s two co-accused who had pleaded guilty, could pay the fine and that circumstance delayed the transmittal of the case to the executive judge, the Supreme Court finds that respondent is guilty of inexcusable neglect of duty in not complying with the requirement of Circular No. 3 for the immediate transmittal of the record of complainant’s case to the executive judge for raffling. Respondent is ordered to pay a fine equivalent to his compensation for twenty days and is warned that a more severe penalty will be imposed upon him for the commission of another irregularity.

This is an administrative complaint for neglect of duty. On January 8, 1981, Danilo Guevarra was charged in the city court of Manila (traffic court Branch XI) with a violation of section 1156 of the Revised Ordinances of Manila for having used the sidewalk as his place of business (Criminal Case No. 156706).

Arraigned on that same day, Guevarra, who was under detention, pleaded not guilty. Atilano Barrozo, the branch clerk of court, forwarded the case to the executive judge of the city court six days later or on January 14.

Under Circular No. 3 of this Court dated April 24, 1975, it was Barrozo’s duty to forward the said case without delay to the executive judge for inclusion in the raffle.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

On January 16, the executive judge asked Barrozo to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his delay in transmitting the case. The delay resulted in Guevarra’s detention for six days.

In his answer, Barrozo alleged that Guevarra and two others were accused in one information. His two co-accused pleaded guilty but Guevarra pleaded not guilty. The record of the case was taken to the cashier’s office so that the two accused, who had pleaded guilty, could pay the fine. That circumstance delayed the transmittal of the case to the executive judge. Barrozo manifested that he had no deliberate intent to delay the raffling of the case and that the delay was allegedly due to oversight.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

We find that Barrozo is guilty of inexcusable neglect of duty in not complying with the requirement of Circular No. 3 for the immediate transmittal of the record of Guevarra’s case to the executive judge for raffling. That delay prejudiced the accused.

WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Court Administrator, Justice Lorenzo Relova, and complainant executive judge, respondent Barrozo is ordered to pay a fine equivalent to his compensation for twenty days. He is warned that a more severe penalty will be imposed upon him for the commission of another irregularity. A copy of this resolution should be attached to his personal record.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., Fernandez and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Abad Santos, J., is on leave.