A.M. No. P-01-1510 - ATTY. MARY ANN PADUGANAN-PEÑARANDA, CLERK OF COURT IV, MTCC-OCC, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, COMPLAINANT, VS. GRACE L. SONGCUYA, CLERK OF COURT III, MTCC-OCC, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY. RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly inform her that the fees were not paid. Thus, her explanation that she got the records from Umas-as on 01 February 2000 and placed it on her table for the reason that it would be easier to retrieve the records to be endorsed to the cashier when payment of docket fees is done, is untenable. [12] It further found inconsistencies in respondent's Comment and Counter-Affidavit. It noted that respondent in her Counter-Affidavit stated that she placed the records in a drawer, and not on her table as she previously claimed in her Comment. It likewise found noteworthy that respondent made no mention in her Comment about the unidentified woman who allegedly came to the office with a notice of payment of filing fees. Curiously, neither was this woman presented as a witness to corroborate respondent's claims. Although finding insufficient evidence to ascribe bad faith on respondent, the OCA found that her acts of instructing the docketing of the cases despite non-payment of the corresponding fees and of keeping the case records for more than a month engendered suspicions that the money for the fees were already with respondent but she deliberately failed to pay the same. It thus recommended that respondent be found guilty of Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, and be penalized with a fine of P5,000, and be given a warning. [13] The recommendation is well taken. As a court employee and an Assistant Clerk of Court at that, respondent is charged with the knowledge of the proper procedure in the docketing of cases. Clearly, the Manual for Clerks of Court provides that: "No case should be assigned a number until the filing fee is paid and in case of a pauper litigant, until the motion to litigate as pauper is approved by the Court/Executive Judge." [14] Clearly, respondent's instruction to docket the cases despite non-payment of the docket fees violated the prescribed procedural rules. Granting that she assumed in good faith the prompt payment of the docket fees, the fact that the fees were not actually paid should have impelled her to return the records to the custody of the docket clerk, who, after all, is the one in charge of receiving cases. Having taken personal custody of the records in departure of the usual procedure, extra diligence was expected of her in assuring the proper processing of the subject cases. On the contrary, she claims to have forgotten about the cases, and she withheld the records, consequently hampering the proper disposition thereof. Granting that no actual delay for raffling occurred as the cases had yet to be endorsed by the cashier, it was her omission to turn over the records to the proper clerk that caused the delay in the follow-up of the collection of the docket fees. Without a doubt, therefore, even if the delay was partly caused by the private complainant's failure to pay the docket fees, respondent's conduct was prejudicial to the speedy administration of justice. Moreover, as found by the OCA