A.M. No. P-06-2264 (Formerly OCA I.P.I Nos. 05-2136-P and 05-2137-P) - ATTY. LELU P. CONTRERAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. TERESITA O. MONGE, CLERK IV, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT-OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, IRIGA CITY. R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly be suspended for one month and one day without pay. In the second complaint, the OCA recommended that respondent be found guilty of violation of reasonable office rules and regulations and accordingly reprimanded. [15] We agree with the findings of fact but disagree with the OCA as to the recommended penalty. Simple neglect of duty is the failure of an employee to give attention to a task expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. [16] It has been consistently held that mere delay in the performance of one's function is considered as simple neglect of duty. [17] It is a less grave offense punishable by suspension without pay for one month and one day to six months. [18] The judicial machinery can only function if every employee performs his task with the highest degree of professionalism. Court personnel are obligated to perform their duties properly and with diligence. [19] Any task given to an employee of the judiciary, however menial it may be, must be done in the most prompt and diligent way. Respondent's tasks of filing utility bills and notices, submission of reports on attendance by court personnel in the flag raising and retreat ceremony, preparation of the list of cases for raffle, participation in the actual raffle of cases and submission of the minutes of the raffle are no exception. In Pilipiña v. Roxas , [20] we held: The Court cannot countenance neglect of duty for even simple neglect of duty lessens the people's confidence in the judiciary and ultimately in the administration of justice. By the very nature of their duties and responsibilities, public servants must faithfully adhere to, hold sacred and render inviolate the constitutional principle that a public office is a public trust; that all public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency Above all, employees of the judiciary must be reminded that they are public servants who must, at all times, be accountable to the public for all their actions. We have repeatedly held that any conduct, act or omission that violates the norm of public accountability or that diminishes or tends to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary will not be tolerated, condoned or countenanced. [21] It is reprehensible that respondent always passed the buck to others when clearly her omissions were due to her own negligence. Respondent was previously reprimanded in A.M. No. P-05-2040. Her act of not logging in and out of the attendance logbook was, without doubt, her second violation of civil service rules. A light offense such as a violation of reasonable office rules and regulations, if violated for the second time, is punishable by suspension for one to 30 days. [22] In view of the fact that respondent was found guilty of violating two civil service rules namely, simple neglect of duty (first offense) and violation of reasonab