A.M. No. P-03-1740 - FRANKLIN Q. SUSA, CLERK OF COURT, BRANCH 27, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA, COMPLAINANT, VS. TEOFILA A. PEÑA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, BRANCH 27, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MANILA. DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the OCA recommended that respondent "be held administratively liable as charged and be meted the penalty of three (3) months suspension from office, with a stern warning that repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely." [7] The Court's Ruling We accept the findings of the OCA but modify the recommendation in regard to the penalty. Administrative Liability The conduct of every person connected with the administration of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. [8] A public office is a public trust. [9] Since public officers are accountable to the people at all times, [10] they must strictly perform their duties and responsibilities. [11] As the administration of justice is a sacred task, this Court condemns any omission or act that may diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary. [12] According to respondent, she had no intention of delaying the transmittal of the appealed cases. However, supposedly because of the heavy pressure of her work and her sickly condition, she had to set aside the preparation of the transmittals. Consequently, she forgot all about them. We find the explanation of respondent too insubstantial to excuse her from administrative liability. We have ruled that failure to transmit the records of a case constitutes negligence and warrants disciplinary action. [13] For judges, undue delay in transmitting the records of a case constitutes a less serious charge. [14] For clerks of court, on the other hand, failure or delay to transmit records of a case has warranted penalties ranging from admonition [15] to a fine of P1,000 [16] to P5,000 [17] to one-month suspension. [18] The prompt transmittal of the records of appealed cases to the appellate court is required to ensure the speedy disposition of cases. [19] For this reason alone, respondent should already be sanctioned administratively. If she really had difficulty in performing her obligations because of the heavy pressure of work, she could have easily relayed her dilemma to the branch clerk of court. Instead, she compounded her liability by keeping court documents in places known only to her. Such action was aggravated by her intentional refusal to disclose to her superiors -- including the branch clerk of court -- the status of the transmittals that she was supposed to accomplish. Complainant avers that respondent intentionally and maliciously hid the documents, but he has failed to support this allegation with evidence. In administrative proceedings, complainants have the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in their complaints. [20] Substantial evidence in an administrative case consists of that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. [21] In the present case, other than the bare allegations of complainant, no evidence was presented before the OCA to show that the documents h