A.M. No. P-00-1401 - BALTAZAR LL. FIRMALO, COMPLAINANT, VS. MELINDA C. QUIERREZ, IN HER CAPACITY AS CLERK III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 82, ODIONGAN, ROMBLON.RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly corrected x x x; (5) All the shortcomings, mistakes done in good faith have been remedied , such as the calendaring of civil cases which are already assigned to me, the preparation of monthly reports and other typing work. While indeed respondent may have corrected and remedied her mistakes and shortcomings, it must be stressed that the requisite competence and efficiency is not confined to those isolated instances pointed out by complainant but is a continuous obligation demanded of her for so long as she serves in the judiciary . The Court has consistently held that the nature of work of those connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, requires them to serve with the highest degree of efficiency and responsibility, in order to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. [8] In sanctioning errant officers and employees involved in the administration of justice, the Court only recently held that: Since the administration of justice is a sacred task, the persons involved in it ought to live up to the strictest standard of honesty, integrity and uprightness. It bears stressing once again that public service requires utmost integrity and the strictest discipline possible of every public servant. A public office is a public trust that enjoins all public officers and employees, particularly those serving in the judiciary to respond to the highest degree of dedication often even beyond personal interest. [9] In OCA v. Sheriff IV Julius G. Cabe, RTC, Branch 28, Catbalogan, Samar , [10] the Court said: Time and again, we have emphasized the heavy burden and responsibility which court personnel are saddled with in view of their exalted positions as keepers of the public faith. They must be constantly reminded that any impression of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of official functions must be avoided. As we have held in the case of Mendoza v. Mabutas , [11] this Court condemns and would never countenance such conduct, act or omission on the part of the all those involved in the administration of justice which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the Judiciary. In the light of the prevailing facts of the case, the Court deems the fine recommended by the OCA commensurate to respondents malfeasance. ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, respondent Melinda C. Quierrez is ordered to pay a FINE in the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for Gross Negligence and Incompetence. She is further STERNLY WARNED that the commission of similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely by this Court. SO ORDERED.