FIRST DIVISION
A.M. No. P-16-3418 (Formerly A.M. No. P-12-3-46-RTC), August 08, 2016
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. ANTONIA P. ESPEJO, STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
This administrative matter arose from the letter1 dated March 10, 2011 of Judge Francisco A. Ante, Jr. (Judge Ante) of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, informing the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that the records of LRC Case No. N-026, Spouses Jose Bello and Corazon Bello, were missing and beyond recovery. Judge Ante suggested that Antonia P. Espejo (Espejo), Stenographer III of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20 (RTC-Branch 20) of Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, be investigated as she was reportedly the one who received the records when it was ordered returned by the Court of Appeals to the court of origin but was mistakenly delivered to the RTC.
The Court, in a Resolution2 dated April 18, 2012, referred Judge Ante's letter to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, for investigation, report, and recommendation.
The case was set for hearing on July 2, 2012.
It was revealed during the hearing that spouses Jose Bello and Corazon Bello (spouses Bello) filed with the MTCC an Application for the Original Registration of Land Title, docketed as LRC Case No. N-026. In its Decision dated May 28, 2001, the MTCC granted the spouses Eiello's Application. However, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed an appeal of the RTC judgment before the Court of Appeals on June 26, 2001, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 71667. Consequently, the entire records of the case was transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
On April 19, 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated May 28, 2011 of the Municipal Trial Court of Vigan, Ilocos Sur is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The application for registration of title over the subject property covered by Plan AP-01-004931 is DISMISSED.3chanroblesvirtuallawlibraryThe aforementioned decision of the Court of Appeals became final and executory and recorded in the book of entries of judgments on May 19, 2007. The appellate court then ordered that the records of the case be remanded to the court of origin.
The undersigned believes that the matter of mistaken deliveries and eventual loss of mail matters and records can be addressed by training and educating court staff and implementing office systems in each court. No doubt, both courts have learned from this experience and have adopted systems in place in their respective courts.The Court referred Executive Judge Dulay-Archog's report to the OCA on December 8, 2014, for evaluation, report and recommendation.6chanrobleslaw
In this particular instance where no prejudice was shown to have caused any party, the records of the subject case LRC Case No. N-026 if required to be reconstituted may be done at the order of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities.5chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that:In accordance with the Manifestation8 of Espejo, the present administrative matter was submitted for resolution based on the pleadings filed.
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary1. the instant matter be RE-DOCKETTED as a regular administrative matter;
2. the Investigation Report dated 14 August 2014 of Judge Cecilia Corazon S. Dulay-Archog, Branch 21, Regional Trial Court, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, be NOTED; and cralawlawlibrary
3. respondent Antonia P. Espejo, Stenographer III, Branch 20, RTC, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, be found GUILTY of Simple Misconduct and be fined in the amount of P5,000.00 with a STERN WARNING that commission of any similar act would be dealt with more severely.7chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Misconduct is "a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer." In grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rules, must be manifest and established by substantial evidence. Grave misconduct necessarily includes the lesser offense of simple misconduct. Thus, a person charged with grave misconduct may be held liable for simple misconduct if the misconduct does not involve any of the elements to qualify the misconduct as grave.That the records of LRC Case No. N-026 may be reconstituted does not absolve Espejo of her administrative liability. Espejo displayed carelessness and disregard for case records, and the loss of such records eventually reflected badly on the courts and caused undue inconvenience, expenses, and delay for the parties.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, p. 4.
2 Id. at 16.
3 Id. at 20.
4 Id. at 24-25.
5 Id. at 52.
6 Id. at 53.
7 Id. at 66.
8 Id. at 70.
9 G.R. No. 172637, April 22, 2015.