Araullo-Antiporta vs. Pacas

A branch clerk of court who delegates the transmittal of court records remains administratively liable for simple neglect of duty when he fails to closely supervise the subordinate and maintain an effective case-management system, even if the subordinate is directly responsible for the loss; the subordinate clerk-in-charge may be liable for gross neglect of duty and gross insubordination for willful and persistent failure to transmit and account for court records.

Atty. Carmen Carmela A. Araullo-Antiporta was the Clerk of Court VI of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Mandaue City, Cebu. Atty. Denis L. Pacas was the Clerk of Court V of Branch 54, Regional Trial Court, Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, while Anthony Pacaldo was then Clerk III of the same branch and later Sheriff IV of Branch 84, Regional Trial Court, Mandaue City, Cebu. The administrative matter concerns the custody and transmittal of criminal case records under Rule 136, Section 7 of the Rules of Court and the disciplinary framework of A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, which amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and allows the Judicial Integrity Board to act on records referred to it. OCA Circular No. 42-2019 also restricts locally funded employees detailed to lower courts from performing tasks relating to the custody of records.

Atty. Carmen Carmela A. Araullo-Antiporta was the Clerk of Court VI of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Mandaue City, Cebu. Atty. Denis L. Pacas was the Clerk of Court V of Branch 54, Regional Trial Court, Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, where Anthony Pacaldo then served as Clerk III and clerk-in-charge for criminal cases; Pacaldo later became Sheriff IV of Branch 84, Regional Trial Court, Mandaue City, Cebu.

On June 29, 2012, Judge Victor A. Teves, Sr. directed the transmittal of the case folders for Criminal Case Nos. 018271-L, 018272-L, and 018273-L, titled People of the Philippines vs. Ceasar R. Baguio, for violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165, to the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Mandaue City, Cebu. The records, however, were transmitted only on November 24, 2020. Only the original records for Criminal Case No. 018271-L were delivered; the records for Criminal Case Nos. 018272-L and 018273-L were missing, prompting the securing of machine copies from the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu for transmittal.

Atty. Pacas prepared an Investigation Report dated November 18, 2020. He explained that the records were supposed to be prepared for transmittal by Pacaldo, the former clerk-in-charge for criminal cases. When confronted, Pacaldo said he could not locate them. After an extensive search by Florentino C. Villacrusis, the court interpreter, the original records for Criminal Case No. 018271-L were found in a pile of folders under Pacaldo’s table.

In his Comment dated July 29, 2021, Pacaldo denied receiving direct instructions from Atty. Pacas to transmit the records. He alleged that Teofilo Bering, a locally-funded employee detailed to Branch 54, received the instruction from Atty. Pacas. Pacaldo maintained that he should not be held accountable because he neither personally received the records for transmittal nor was there any document showing that he did, and that the Investigation Report prepared by Atty. Pacas was self-serving.

Atty. Pacas, in his Comment dated March 1, 2022, asserted that he directed Pacaldo, not Bering, to cause the transmittal. He attached the affidavit of Arabella Cabezas Baguio, wife of accused Caesar Baguio, stating that between 2012 and 2013 she followed up with Pacaldo, who replied that he was still looking for the records; the affidavit of Rogelio M. Mercado, Jr., prison guard and Acting Records Officer of the Cebu Provincial Detention and Rehabilitation Center, stating that since 2019 he and Pacaldo exchanged communications about the records and that Pacaldo said they were missing and retrieval was ongoing; and the memorandum of Michael Y. Fabe, Sheriff IV and Officer-in-Charge of criminal cases, stating that he informed Pacaldo that Mercado had called and that Pacaldo reasoned the records could not be found since 2012. Atty. Pacas apologized and maintained that he immediately acted once he learned about the missing records.

Pacaldo had also been issued several memoranda calling his attention to his failure to conduct a physical inventory of criminal cases, regularly update the docket book, and locate missing criminal case records, and he had been reprimanded for frequently leaving his workstation during office hours. His superiors, Atty. Pacas and Judge Teves, had called out this conduct as early as 2011. In a Memorandum dated August 4, 2020, Judge Ferdinand A. Collantes required Pacaldo to conduct a physical inventory of criminal cases under his safekeeping before assuming his position as sheriff in another sala; Pacaldo neither complied nor made an official turnover of the physical inventory, exhibits, and evidence under his custody, and later claimed lack of time because he was overwhelmed by his workload as newly appointed Sheriff IV of Branch 84.

The Office of the Executive Director found that the evidence pointed to Pacaldo as responsible for the delayed transmittal, rejected his defense that Bering was instructed, and noted that as former clerk-in-charge he was primarily tasked to safekeep the records and update his superiors. It also found that Atty. Pacas should be sternly warned because his failure to establish a systematic and efficient record management system contributed to the delay. The Judicial Integrity Board found Pacaldo liable for gross neglect of duty and gross insubordination, and Atty. Pacas liable for gross neglect of duty for failing to properly supervise Pacaldo and ensure an orderly and efficient record management system.

• Pacaldo — Denial of Direct Instruction: Pacaldo denied receiving direct instructions from Atty. Pacas to transmit the subject case records and claimed that Teofilo Bering, a locally-funded employee detailed to Branch 54, received the instruction instead.
• Pacaldo — Lack of Substantial Evidence: Pacaldo maintained that he should not be held accountable for the loss because he neither personally received the records for transmittal nor was there any document showing that he did, and that the Investigation Report prepared by Atty. Pacas was self-serving and insufficient to prove neglect of duty.
• Atty. Pacas — Direction to Pacaldo: Atty. Pacas asserted that he directed Pacaldo, not Bering, to cause the transmittal of the subject case records, and attached affidavits and a memorandum to substantiate that Pacaldo was the one who knew of and handled the missing records.
• Atty. Pacas — Immediate Action and Apology: Atty. Pacas apologized for the incident and maintained that he immediately acted once he learned about the missing subject case records.

• Administrative Liability of Respondent Pacaldo: Whether Anthony Pacaldo should be held administratively liable for gross neglect of duty in the performance of official functions and gross insubordination.
• Administrative Liability of Respondent Atty. Pacas: Whether Atty. Denis L. Pacas should be held administratively liable for neglect of duty in the performance of official functions.
• Proper Penalties: Whether the penalties recommended by the Judicial Integrity Board should be modified in light of mitigating circumstances.

• Administrative Liability of Respondent Pacaldo: Yes. Pacaldo is guilty of gross neglect of duty and gross insubordination, both serious charges under Sections 14(d) and (n) of A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC.
• Administrative Liability of Respondent Atty. Pacas: Yes. Atty. Pacas is guilty of simple neglect of duty, a less serious charge under Section 15(b) of A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC.
• Proper Penalties: Modified. Pacaldo is suspended for four months for gross neglect of duty and for six months and one day for gross insubordination, without salary or other benefits; Atty. Pacas is fined PHP 18,000.00, payable within 30 days from finality.

• Administrative Liability of Respondent Pacaldo: The directive to transmit the records was issued on June 29, 2012, but transmittal occurred only on November 24, 2020, a delay of more than eight years. As clerk-in-charge for criminal cases, Pacaldo was directly responsible for the delayed transmittal. Substantial evidence—affidavits and memoranda from court staff, other personnel, and the wife of the accused—showed that inquiries were made to Pacaldo and that he disclosed the records could not be located, supporting Atty. Pacas’s assertion that Pacaldo was tasked to transmit them. His defense that Bering was instructed was rejected as a mere afterthought because Bering died in 2013 and could no longer refute the allegation; moreover, OCA Circular No. 42-2019 prohibits locally funded employees detailed to lower courts from performing tasks relating to the custody of records, and Pacaldo presented no convincing proof that Atty. Pacas instructed Bering in contravention of the circular. In the absence of contrary evidence, Atty. Pacas was presumed to have properly performed his duties and directed Pacaldo. Gross neglect of duty is negligence characterized by a glaring want of care, acting or omitting to act where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, or acting with conscious indifference to consequences; it becomes serious when it endangers or threatens public welfare. Prudence required Pacaldo to promptly inform his immediate superior if the records were lost, but despite numerous follow-ups, no genuine effort to locate them or inform Atty. Pacas was shown; his main defense was denial that the task was assigned to him. The more than eight-year delay endangered or threatened the public welfare, particularly the accused’s right to speedy disposition of his case. Gross insubordination is the inexplicable and unjustified refusal to obey a lawful order of a superior, importing willful or intentional disregard of lawful and reasonable instructions. Pacaldo was issued memoranda for failure to conduct a physical inventory of criminal cases, regularly update the docket book, and locate missing criminal case records, and was reprimanded for frequently leaving his workstation; his superiors had called out this conduct as early as 2011. He also failed to comply with Judge Collantes’s August 4, 2020 memorandum requiring a physical inventory before assuming his position as sheriff and made no official turnover, offering only lack of time and heavy workload as excuse. Thus, he was guilty of gross insubordination.
• Administrative Liability of Respondent Atty. Pacas: Although Pacaldo was directly responsible for the delayed transmittal, this did not exculpate Atty. Pacas. As branch clerk of court, Atty. Pacas exercised general supervision over all personnel and had the duty to oversee subordinates, imposing greater responsibility to ensure they performed tasks properly, promptly, and efficiently. His responsibility over the records did not terminate upon delegating transmittal to Pacaldo; it was incumbent upon him to ensure compliance. He failed to closely supervise Pacaldo. As official custodian of judicial records under Rule 136, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, Atty. Pacas controlled and managed all records, exhibits, documents, properties, and supplies of the court as part of his non-adjudicatory functions, and as primary custodian he was liable for any loss. He blindly depended on Pacaldo to manage criminal case records and failed to take necessary measures; had he put in place an effective case-management system and conducted periodic inventory, Pacaldo’s dereliction would not have gone unnoticed for so long. Judge Baring-Uy vs. Atty. Salinas held that clerks of court are chiefly responsible for the shortcomings of subordinates to whom administrative functions are delegated and must bear a share of the blame for failure to exercise a higher degree of care and vigilance in supervising subordinates and managing court records. Simple neglect of duty is the failure of a public official or employee to give attention to a task expected of them, resulting from carelessness or indifference. Atty. Pacas was therefore guilty of simple neglect of duty.
• Proper Penalties: Gross neglect of duty and gross insubordination are serious charges, while simple neglect of duty is a less serious charge. Section 17 of A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC provides the sanctions: for serious charges, dismissal, suspension of more than six months but not exceeding one year, or a fine of more than PHP 100,000.00 but not exceeding PHP 200,000.00; for less serious charges, suspension of not less than one month nor more than six months, or a fine of more than PHP 35,000.00 but not exceeding PHP 100,000.00. Sections 19 and 20 allow mitigating circumstances and provide that if one or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance are present, the penalty may be not less than half of the minimum prescribed. Pacaldo was a first-time administrative respondent, a mitigating circumstance. For gross neglect of duty, the Court adopted the JIB’s recommended suspension of four months. For gross insubordination, without the benefit of any mitigating circumstance, he was penalized with suspension of six months and one day. Atty. Pacas was entitled to humanitarian considerations because he expressed remorse, apologized, took immediate action once apprised of the loss, secured certified machine copies for the missing cases from the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Cebu, and persisted in the search until the original copies were located and delivered on December 10, 2021. The prior administrative case in Re Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Br. 54, Lapu-Lapu City, where Atty. Pacas was admonished and warned, could not be treated as an aggravating circumstance because admonition and warning are not penalties. Taking these circumstances together, a fine of PHP 18,000.00 was imposed on Atty. Pacas for simple neglect of duty, payable within 30 days from finality in accordance with Ignacio vs. Balading.

• Gross neglect of duty — Negligence characterized by a glaring want of care; acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally; or acting with 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 frequency of instances, becomes so serious as to endanger or threaten the public welfare. The Court applied this to Pacaldo because the more than eight-year delay in transmitting the records, his failure to locate them, and his failure to promptly inform his superior endangered or threatened the public welfare, particularly the accused’s right to speedy disposition of his case.
• Gross insubordination — The inexplicable and unjustified refusal to obey some order that a superior is entitled to give and have obeyed, importing a willful or intentional disregard of the lawful and reasonable instructions of the superior. The Court applied this to Pacaldo because he repeatedly disregarded memoranda and directives requiring him to conduct a physical inventory, update the docket book, locate missing records, and make an official turnover, and because his excuse of lack of time and heavy workload was flimsy.
• Simple neglect of duty — The failure of a public official or employee to give attention to a task expected of them, resulting from carelessness or indifference. The Court applied this to Atty. Pacas because, as branch clerk of court and official custodian, he failed to closely supervise Pacaldo and failed to maintain an effective case-management system, notwithstanding that Pacaldo was directly responsible for the delayed transmittal.
• Clerk of court as official custodian and supervisor — Under Rule 136, Section 7 of the Rules of Court, the clerk shall safely keep all records, papers, files, exhibits, and public property committed to their charge. As branch clerk of court, Atty. Pacas exercised general supervision over all personnel, and his responsibility over the records did not terminate upon delegation; he remained chiefly responsible for the shortcomings of subordinates to whom administrative functions were delegated and had to bear a share of the blame for failure to exercise a higher degree of care and vigilance in supervising subordinates and managing court records.
• Mitigating circumstances under A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC — Sections 19 and 20 allow the Court to consider mitigating circumstances such as first offense and humanitarian considerations, and provide that if one or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance are present, the penalty may be not less than half of the minimum prescribed. Pacaldo’s first administrative charge was a mitigating circumstance; Atty. Pacas’s remorse, apology, and immediate remedial action were considered humanitarian considerations. Admonition and warning are not penalties and cannot be treated as aggravating circumstances.
• Locally funded employees and custody of records — OCA Circular No. 42-2019 prohibits locally funded employees detailed to lower courts from performing tasks relating to the custody of records; they may only perform clerical tasks. The Court applied this to reject Pacaldo’s defense that Bering, a locally funded employee, was instructed to transmit the subject case records.

• "Gross neglect of duty is defined as: . . . 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." — This is the Court’s canonical definition of gross neglect of duty, applied to Pacaldo’s eight-year failure to transmit and account for the criminal case records.
• "Additionally, respondent Pacaldo is liable for gross insubordination, which is defined as "the inexplicable and unjustified refusal to obey some order that a superior is entitled to give and have obeyed, and imports a willful or intentional disregard of the lawful and reasonable instructions of the superior."" — This passage defines gross insubordination and supplies the standard used to hold Pacaldo liable for repeatedly disregarding his superiors’ memoranda and directives.
• "As the branch clerk of court, respondent Atty. Pacas exercises general supervision over all personnel in the court. His duty to oversee his subordinates imposes upon him greater responsibility to ensure that they perform their tasks properly, promptly, and efficiently." — This states the supervisory duty of a branch clerk of court, which the Court used to find Atty. Pacas guilty of simple neglect of duty.
• "After all, respondent Atty. Pacas's responsibility over the subject case records did not terminate when he delegated its transmittal to respondent Pacaldo. Rather, it was incumbent upon him to ensure that his instruction was complied with." — This is the ratio for holding Atty. Pacas liable despite delegation, because his custodial and supervisory responsibility continued.

• Judge Baring-Uy vs. Atty. Salinas, 882 Phil. 68 (2020) — Controlling precedent. The Court held that clerks of court are chiefly responsible for the shortcomings of subordinates to whom administrative functions normally pertaining to them are delegated, and must bear a share of the blame for failure to exercise a higher degree of care and vigilance in supervising subordinates and managing court records. Relied on to find Atty. Pacas guilty of simple neglect of duty.
• Judge Santiago vs. Fernando, 933 Phil. 720 (2023) — Cited for the definition of gross insubordination and for the consequences of neglect; used to support Pacaldo’s liability.
• Judge Sarno-Davin vs. Quirante, 868 Phil. 405 (2020) — Cited for the definitions of gross neglect of duty and simple neglect of duty.
• Atty. Alentajan vs. De Jesus, A.M. No. P-23-105, May 28, 2024 — Cited for the definition of gross negligence as a flagrant and palpable breach of duty.
• Re Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Br. 54, Lapu-Lapu City, 511 Phil. 71-79 (2005) — Prior administrative case involving Atty. Pacas. The Court held that the admonition and warning issued there were not penalties and thus could not be treated as an aggravating circumstance in the present case.
• Ignacio vs. Balading, A.M. No. P-24-150, July 30, 2024 — Cited for the rule that the fine is payable within 30 days from finality.
• Samahan ng mga Progresibong Kabataan vs. Quezon City, 815 Phil. 1067 (2017) — Cited for the rule that admonition and warning are not considered penalties.
• Nadala vs. Denila, 853 Phil. 34 (2019) — Cited for the principle that while the Court must firmly discipline errant employees, it may temper judgment with mercy.

• Section 14(d) and (n), A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC — Classify gross neglect of duty and gross insubordination as serious charges. These provisions are the basis for Pacaldo’s administrative liability.
• Section 15(b), A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC — Classifies simple neglect of duty as a less serious charge. This provision is the basis for Atty. Pacas’s administrative liability.
• Section 17, A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC — Sets the sanctions for serious and less serious charges, including suspension and fine ranges. Applied in determining the penalties for both respondents.
• Sections 19 and 20, A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC — Provide for mitigating and aggravating circumstances and the manner of imposition. The Court applied the first-offense mitigating circumstance to Pacaldo and humanitarian considerations to Atty. Pacas, and held that with mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstance, the penalty may be not less than half of the minimum prescribed.
• Section 7, Rule 136, Rules of Court — Requires the clerk to safely keep all records, papers, files, exhibits, and public property committed to their charge. This is the basis for Atty. Pacas’s responsibility as official custodian of judicial records.
• OCA Circular No. 42-2019 — Prohibits locally funded employees detailed to lower courts from performing tasks relating to the custody of records; they may only perform clerical tasks. Applied to reject Pacaldo’s defense that Bering was instructed to transmit the records.
• Rule 71, Section 3, Rules of Court — Authorizes contempt proceedings for disobeying a lawful order of the Court. The Court ordered its application if Atty. Pacas fails to pay the fine.
• Sections 5, 11, and 12, Republic Act No. 9165 — Violations charged in the subject criminal cases whose records were delayed and lost; these provisions supply the context for the underlying criminal cases.

Gesmundo, C.J. (Chairperson), and Hernando, J., concurred. Zalameda and Marquez, JJ., were on official business.