Bandong v. Ching

A.M. No. P-95-1161 (August 23, 1996)

Facts:

The case arose from a memorandum issued by Executive Judge Henry B. Basilla of Branch 49 of the Regional Trial Court in Cataingan, Masbate, on July 13, 1995. The memorandum directed Atty. Jesus N. Bandong, Clerk of Court VI, to conduct an inventory of all cases from 1985 to 1995 due to the absence of minutes of court sessions in the court records. Atty. Bandong reported that there were 67 criminal cases and 11 civil cases with a total of 281 sessions or hearings lacking minutes, which were the responsibility of the Court Interpreter, Bella R. Ching.

Following this report, Judge Basilla recommended that Ching be fined and that her salary be withheld due to her failure to perform her duties. On October 18, 1995, the Supreme Court treated the report as a formal complaint against Ching and ordered her to respond. In her answer, Ching claimed that she had prepared and submitted the minutes for the cases mentioned, and that any missing minutes were due to her being on leave or misfiled by a Court Aide.

Atty. Bandong, in his reply, maintained that the case should be resolved based on his initial report. The Office of the Court Administrator found Ching guilty of simple neglect of duty for her failure to prepare and attach the minutes over a ten-year period. They recommended a fine of P3,000.00, noting that this was her first offense and that there were mitigating circumstances.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether Bella R. Ching committed neglect of duty by failing to prepare and submit the minutes of court sessions.
2. What penalty should be imposed on Ching for her neglect of duty.
3. Whether Atty. Jesus N. Bandong, as Clerk of Court, should also face disciplinary action for failing to supervise Ching's performance.

Arguments:

• Complainant (Atty. Jesus N. Bandong): Argued that Ching failed to fulfill her responsibilities as a Court Interpreter by not preparing and attaching the minutes of court sessions, which is a critical part of court records. He recommended withholding her salary and imposing a fine.

• Respondent (Bella R. Ching): Contended that she had submitted the minutes for the cases in question and that any lapses were due to her being on leave or the misfiling of documents by others. She asserted that her actions did not constitute neglect of duty.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Court found Bella R. Ching guilty of neglect of duty, emphasizing that her failure to prepare the minutes was not a simple oversight but a habitual neglect that persisted over a decade. The Court noted that the minutes are essential for maintaining accurate court records and that Ching's lack of diligence undermined the integrity of the judicial process.

While the Office of the Court Administrator recommended a fine, the Court deemed that the prolonged nature of Ching's neglect warranted a more severe penalty. However, considering it was her first offense and that she had eventually complied with her duties, the Court imposed a one-month suspension without pay instead of a fine.

Additionally, the Court directed Atty. Jesus N. Bandong to explain why he should not face disciplinary action for his failure to supervise Ching effectively, highlighting the responsibility of clerks of court to ensure that their subordinates perform their duties properly.

Significant Legal Principles or Doctrines Established:

1. Neglect of Duty: The case underscores the importance of diligence and accountability in public service, particularly in the judiciary, where the integrity of court records is paramount.
2. Disciplinary Action: The ruling illustrates the principle that repeated neglect over an extended period can lead to more severe penalties than a single instance of neglect, even if it is the first offense.
3. Supervisory Responsibility: The case emphasizes the supervisory role of clerks of court in ensuring that their subordinates fulfill their duties, establishing that failure to supervise can also lead to disciplinary consequences.