Clerk of Court Dismissed for Tampering Court Records and Concealing Ex Parte Proceedings

The Supreme Court has long held that those who work in the judiciary must adhere to the highest standards of integrity and honesty. In Judge Joselito S. Salvador v. Romancito M. Serrano (A.M. No. P-06-2104, January 31, 2006), the Court dealt firmly with a clerk of court who tampered with court records, concealed proceedings, and overstepped his authority. The case serves as a stern reminder that public office is a public trust, and those who betray it face severe consequences, including dismissal from service.

The Facts of the Case

The respondent, Romancito M. Serrano, was a Clerk of Court III at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, San Fernando City, Pampanga. In March 2002, a plaintiff in Civil Case No. 8114 filed a motion to declare the defendant in default. The motion was heard on March 15, 2002, and because the defendant failed to appear, the respondent received the plaintiff's evidence ex parte.

On April 16, 2002, Judge Rodrigo Flores issued an order declaring the defendant in default. However, when Judge Flores left for the United States in May 2002, Judge Joselito Salvador took over as pairing judge. On May 9, 2002, Judge Salvador signed a similar order declaring the defendant in default and setting the reception of evidence. It was only later, when the plaintiff's counsel informed him that evidence had already been presented ex parte, that Judge Salvador became suspicious and ordered a verification of the records.

The verification revealed serious irregularities. The earlier order of default dated April 16, 2002, signed by Judge Flores, had been removed from the case records. The respondent had instructed a stenographer to retype the order, changing its date and contents, and substituting Judge Salvador's name as the signatory. The respondent also personally received the plaintiff's evidence ex parte, despite not being a lawyer.

The Issue

The central issue was whether the respondent was guilty of dishonesty for concealing the ex parte proceedings, tampering with court records, and receiving evidence without legal authority.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found the respondent guilty of dishonesty and dismissed him from service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality.

The Court rejected the respondent's defenses of forgetfulness and heavy workload. It noted that denial is a weak defense that must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability. The testimonies of the stenographers and the transcript of stenographic notes clearly established the respondent's participation in the ex parte proceedings.

Key Principles Established

Clerks of court are custodians of judicial records. The Court emphasized that a clerk of court has the duty to safely keep all records, papers, files, and exhibits committed to their charge. They must ensure an orderly and efficient record management system and cannot slacken in their duties under any pretext.

Only lawyers may receive evidence in default or ex parte hearings. Under Section 9, Rule 30 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, the court may delegate the reception of evidence to its clerk of court only if the clerk is a member of the bar. The respondent, being a non-lawyer, had no authority to receive the plaintiff's evidence ex parte.

Substantial alterations to court orders are beyond a clerk's authority. While courts have the inherent power to amend their orders, this power rests with the judge, not with clerks of court who perform only adjudicative support and non-adjudicative functions. The respondent's changes to the order were not mere grammatical corrections—they substantially altered the rights and obligations of the parties.

Dishonesty is a grave offense. Under the civil service rules on administrative offenses, dishonesty is classified as a grave offense punishable by dismissal from service upon the first offense. The Court noted that dishonesty implies "a disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud; unworthiness; lack of integrity."

Practical Takeaways

• Court personnel must maintain impeccable integrity. Employees of the judiciary, from judges to clerks, must conduct themselves with utmost honesty and diligence. Any act that tends to impede the orderly administration of justice will not be tolerated.

• Records tampering has severe consequences. Removing, altering, or concealing court orders and records is a grave offense that warrants dismissal from service, even on the first instance.

• Know your authority. Court personnel must understand the limits of their authority. Receiving evidence in default or ex parte proceedings is reserved for clerks of court who are members of the bar, as provided by the Rules of Court.

• Forgetfulness is not a valid defense. Claims of heavy workload, personal problems, or simple forgetfulness will not excuse misconduct in the judiciary. Court employees are expected to be diligent and vigilant at all times.

• Public office is a public trust. The Constitution mandates that public officers must serve with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. Those who violate this trust face the full force of administrative discipline.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.