A.M. NO. P-06-2219 [FORMERLY A.M. NO. 06-7-392-RTC] - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. OFFICER-IN-CHARGE AND LEGAL RESEARCHER NILDA CINCO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28, CATBALOGAN, SAMAR.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly recommended that she be suspended for one month and one day, with advice to devise means to ensure the safety of the records of the cases. [12] In compliance with this Court's Resolution of April 16, 2008 [13] requiring respondent to manifest within ten days from notice whether she was willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed, she filed "Supplemental Comments," which the Court noted in its Resolution of November 12, 2008, [14] stating that she is "a victim of vindictiveness by an unscrupulous employee" whose "misbehavior" they were only trying to curtail. THE COURT'S FINDINGS The Court finds the evaluation by the OCA of the Investigating Judge's Report and its recommendation well-taken. Respondent was the Officer-in-Charge, Branch Clerk of Court. As such, she had vital functions in the administration of justice. Clerks of court are ranking officers who perform vital functions in the administration of justice. They are the designated custodians of, and have control over, court records. Section 7, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court states that clerks of court shall safely keep all the records, papers, files, and exhibits committed to their charge . The 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court states that the duties of clerks of court include receiving and keeping the necessary papers of cases. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Carriedo , the Court held that clerks of court are duty-bound to safely keep court records and have them readily available upon request. They must be diligent and vigilant in managing the records . In Office of the Court Administrator v. Ramirez, the Court held that clerks of court are liable for the loss of court records . [15] (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied) Despite respondent's awareness, however, that the filing cabinets were not enough to store all court records, she did not bother to inform the judge of the necessity of securing additional cabinets and, to, in the meantime, resort to measures to ensure the safety of the records. Indeed, respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty, defined as "the failure to give attention to a task or the disregard of a duty due to carelessness or indifference," [16] which is classified as a less grave offense under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service and punishable with suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. [17] That respondent may have been saddled with a heavy workload does not free her from administrative liability. Rivera v. Buena [18] teaches: When respondent assumed the position of branch clerk of court, it was understood that he was willing, ready and able to do his job with utmost devotion and efficiency . Having a voluminous workload, and being forced to do legal research work are unavailing defenses. Neither can respondent pass the blame to his subordinates. Being the administrative officer and having control