A.M. No. MTJ-98-1144 - FLORIDE DAWA, NORALIZ L. JORGENSEN, FEMENINA LAZARO-BARRETO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE ARMANDO C. DE ASA, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 51, CALOOCAN CITY.

Ruling

Accordingly, as acting executive judge, work concerns and attitudes, were honed up if not altogether dramatically changed. Misconceptions have been straightened up. It was emphasized that the Office of the Clerk of Court [was] not an independent body. It must be the secretariat or unit that should serve and cater not only to its own concern, but that of all the administrative as well as functional requirements of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, thereat. Not because, it is called the Office of the Clerk of Court, would mean that the clerk of court installed, is a co-equal of the judges thereat. It was made clear that it was for this reason why an Executive Judge/Vice Executive Judge is designated, to fill up this impasse. Further, as clerk of court, functionally, such a position is under the direct control and supervision of all judges thereat. Accordingly, except those as provided for under the rules and applicable circulars, when a clerk of court can act independently, any action, movement, process and exercise, taken, with national, local as well as private agencies must bear the imprimatur of the executive Judge. This directive apparently was not observed. Either it was misunderstood, taken lightly, seriously resisted or even disregarded. But its non-observance cannot be excused or countenanced. Monthly meeting[s] with all clerks of court were scheduled and designed to update and enhance their working knowledge on assigned task[s]. Important concerns and problems of their offices [were] supposed to be taken up. Hours of work were strictly implemented, loitering/roaming around during office hours was prohibited, time records of the Clerk of Court. Clerks of Court of branches including its [sic] personnel, with presiding judges on leave or vacant, must after, its being authenticated, must [sic] be signed by the Executive Judge. Reports of immoral acts and loose moral values were received, specifically in the office of the clerk of court. Ms. Buencamino was apprised and directed to closely monitor such problem. Before the staging of this hatchup, the undersigned received reports of its unabated occurrences. However, either these were treated with tolerance or viewed with blind eyes. Most importantly, for purposes of effective control, an installation of an office for the Executive Judge was conceived. This project was apparently disliked. It was about the last week of July or first week of August, 1997, that Judge Santiago informed the undersigned, that we ha[d] to implement such a scheme. The plan was to get the room of Atty. Buencamino, to house the Executive Judge[s] office, as its perimeter, appeared easily organizable with least renovation and expense, for a conference room and a library, folded into one. Buencamino, in turn, would take the room of David Maniquis, deputy clerk of court, who should occupy the executive table used by the former, located outside, along with OCC personnel for proper monitoring and active control of the af