Lawyerly

AM No. MTJ-08-1699

2009-03-13

RODOLFO B. BAYGAR v. JUDGE LILIAN D. PANONTONGAN

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The Clerk of Court is an essential officer in any judicial system. His office is the nucleus of activities, adjudicative and administrative. As such, he must be reminded that his administrative functions are just as vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice. He is charged with the efficient recording, filing and management of court records, besides having administrative supervision over court personnel. Clerks of Court play a key role in the complement of the court and cannot be permitted to slacken on their jobs under one pretext or another.[32]

AM RTJ-07-2039

2008-04-18

RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC v. JUDGE WILLIAM M. LAYAGUE

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

The Court has always impressed upon all members of the judiciary the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied.[34] The Constitution itself, under Section 15, Article VIII, mandates that lower courts have three (3) months from the date of submission within which to decide the cases or matters pending before them. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct directs judges to "dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods." Finally, Canons 6 and 7 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics exhort judges to be prompt and punctual in the disposition and resolution of cases and matters pending before their court, to wit: PROMPTNESS

AM NO. MTJ-08-1702

2008-04-08

EDWIN LACANILAO v. JUDGE MAXWELL S. ROSETE

PER CURIAM

The administration of justice is circumscribed with heavy burden of responsibility. It requires everyone involved in its dispensation - from justices and judges to the lowliest clerks - to live up to the strictest standards of competence, integrity and diligence in public service.[23] Judge Rosete and process server Taguba failed to live up to these standards.

AM No. 07-8-207-MTC

2008-01-31

RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT

QUISUMBING, J.

In addition, the OCA called our attention to four other cases where the penalties we imposed varied from a fine of P2,000,[13] P20,000[14] and P40,000,[15] to suspension for three months without pay.[16]

AM No. P-04-1917

2007-12-10

OCA v. MRS. ELADIA T. CUNTING

NACHURA, J.

The administration of justice is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. It requires everyone involved in its dispensation -- from the justices and judges to the lowliest clerks -- to live up to the strictest standards of competence, integrity and diligence in the public service.[8] As frontliners in the administration of justice, they should live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity. They must bear in mind that the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work there.[9]

AM NO. P-04-1924

2007-04-27

OCA v. JUSTAFINA HOPE T. LAYA

PER CURIAM

Time and again, the Court has stressed that every employee in the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty.[32] The conduct required of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility, as the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct of the men and women who work thereat.[33] No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its occupant than a judicial office.[34] Indeed, the nature and responsibilities of public officers enshrined in the Constitution and oft-repeated in our case law are not mere rhetoric to be taken as idealistic sentiments.[35] These are working standards and attainable goals that should be matched with actual deeds.[36]

AM NO. P-06-2103

2007-04-17

OCA v. ATTY. ROMULO V. PAREDES

CORONA, J.

Clerks of court perform a delicate function as designated custodians of the court's funds, revenues, records, properties and premises.[10] As such, they are generally regarded as treasurer, accountant, guard and physical plant manager thereof.[11] Thus, they are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of such funds and property.[12]

AM NO. 05-8-233-MTC

2006-01-31

RE: FINAL REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF MIDSAYAP

PER CURIAM

We agree with the findings of the OCA. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. [12] Those charged with the dispensation of justice, from the justices and judges to the lowliest clerks, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Not only must their conduct at all times be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, it must be beyond suspicion. [13]

AM NO. 05-10-299-MCTC

2005-12-14

RE: REPORT ON JUDICIAL AUDIT

TINGA, J.

Rule 3.10. A judge should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may become aware. Judge Baldoza's contention that the Court personnel are to blame for the resultant delay in the disposition of cases before his sala holds no water in view of the foregoing rules. In legal contemplation, the judge presiding over a branch of a court is the head of that branch.[18] As head of the MCTC therefore, it is precisely Judge Baldoza's responsibility to organize the personnel and supervise the work to ensure that the cases are resolved on time.

AM NO. P-05-1989

2005-10-20

REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT MCTC-MABALACAT

PANGANIBAN, J.

In Re: Delayed Remittance of Collections of Odtuha,[2] this Court ruled that an unjustified delay in remitting collections constitutes grave misconduct. The failure of clerks of court to remit funds deposited with them, as well as to give a satisfactory explanation of the failure, constitutes gross dishonesty, grave misconduct and even malversation of public funds.[3] Verily, the conduct of Ms Basa would have warranted the maximum penalty of dismissal, if not for the fact that she has already retired from the service. In Re: Report on Judicial and Financial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Koronadal City,[4] this Court imposed upon the respondent retired clerk of court a fine equivalent to his six months' salary, for incurring shortages in his remittances to the JDF and the General Fund.

	AM No. MTJ-08-1699 2009-03-13	RODOLFO B. BAYGAR v. JUDGE LILIAN D. PANONTONGAN CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Clerk of Court is an essential officer in any judicial system. His office is the nucleus of activities, adjudicative and administrative. As such, he must be reminded that his administrative functions are just as vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice. He is charged with the efficient recording, filing and management of court records, besides having administrative supervision over court personnel. Clerks of Court play a key role in the complement of the court and cannot be permitted to slacken on their jobs under one pretext or another.[32]
	AM RTJ-07-2039 2008-04-18	RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN RTC v. JUDGE WILLIAM M. LAYAGUE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
The Court has always impressed upon all members of the judiciary the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied.[34] The Constitution itself, under Section 15, Article VIII, mandates that lower courts have three (3) months from the date of submission within which to decide the cases or matters pending before them. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct directs judges to "dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods." Finally, Canons 6 and 7 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics exhort judges to be prompt and punctual in the disposition and resolution of cases and matters pending before their court, to wit: PROMPTNESS
	AM NO. MTJ-08-1702 2008-04-08	EDWIN LACANILAO v. JUDGE MAXWELL S. ROSETE PER CURIAM
The administration of justice is circumscribed with heavy burden of responsibility. It requires everyone involved in its dispensation - from justices and judges to the lowliest clerks - to live up to the strictest standards of competence, integrity and diligence in public service.[23] Judge Rosete and process server Taguba failed to live up to these standards.
	AM No. 07-8-207-MTC 2008-01-31	RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT QUISUMBING, J.
In addition, the OCA called our attention to four other cases where the penalties we imposed varied from a fine of P2,000,[13] P20,000[14] and P40,000,[15] to suspension for three months without pay.[16]
	AM No. P-04-1917 2007-12-10	OCA v. MRS. ELADIA T. CUNTING NACHURA, J.
The administration of justice is circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. It requires everyone involved in its dispensation -- from the justices and judges to the lowliest clerks -- to live up to the strictest standards of competence, integrity and diligence in the public service.[8] As frontliners in the administration of justice, they should live up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity. They must bear in mind that the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work there.[9]
	AM NO. P-04-1924 2007-04-27	OCA v. JUSTAFINA HOPE T. LAYA PER CURIAM
Time and again, the Court has stressed that every employee in the judiciary should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty.[32] The conduct required of court personnel, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility, as the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct of the men and women who work thereat.[33] No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its occupant than a judicial office.[34] Indeed, the nature and responsibilities of public officers enshrined in the Constitution and oft-repeated in our case law are not mere rhetoric to be taken as idealistic sentiments.[35] These are working standards and attainable goals that should be matched with actual deeds.[36]
	AM NO. P-06-2103 2007-04-17	OCA v. ATTY. ROMULO V. PAREDES CORONA, J.
Clerks of court perform a delicate function as designated custodians of the court's funds, revenues, records, properties and premises.[10] As such, they are generally regarded as treasurer, accountant, guard and physical plant manager thereof.[11] Thus, they are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of such funds and property.[12]
	AM NO. 05-8-233-MTC 2006-01-31	RE: FINAL REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF MIDSAYAP PER CURIAM
We agree with the findings of the OCA. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. [12] Those charged with the dispensation of justice, from the justices and judges to the lowliest clerks, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. Not only must their conduct at all times be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, it must be beyond suspicion. [13]
	AM NO. 05-10-299-MCTC 2005-12-14	RE: REPORT ON JUDICIAL AUDIT TINGA, J.
Rule 3.10. A judge should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may become aware. Judge Baldoza's contention that the Court personnel are to blame for the resultant delay in the disposition of cases before his sala holds no water in view of the foregoing rules. In legal contemplation, the judge presiding over a branch of a court is the head of that branch.[18] As head of the MCTC therefore, it is precisely Judge Baldoza's responsibility to organize the personnel and supervise the work to ensure that the cases are resolved on time.
	AM NO. P-05-1989 2005-10-20	REPORT ON FINANCIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT MCTC-MABALACAT PANGANIBAN, J.
In Re: Delayed Remittance of Collections of Odtuha,[2] this Court ruled that an unjustified delay in remitting collections constitutes grave misconduct. The failure of clerks of court to remit funds deposited with them, as well as to give a satisfactory explanation of the failure, constitutes gross dishonesty, grave misconduct and even malversation of public funds.[3] Verily, the conduct of Ms Basa would have warranted the maximum penalty of dismissal, if not for the fact that she has already retired from the service. In Re: Report on Judicial and Financial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Koronadal City,[4] this Court imposed upon the respondent retired clerk of court a fine equivalent to his six months' salary, for incurring shortages in his remittances to the JDF and the General Fund.

IN RE: REPORT ON JUDICIAL