Clerks of Court Must Transmit Appeal Records on Time: A Lesson from Tecson v. Asuncion-Roxas

The Supreme Court has long emphasized that court personnel play a vital role in the administration of justice, and any delay in their duties—no matter how brief—can deprive litigants of their rights. In Tecson v. Asuncion-Roxas (A.M. No. P-16-3515, August 10, 2016), the Court held a Clerk of Court liable for gross neglect of duty for failing to transmit the complete records of a criminal case to the Court of Appeals (CA) for over a year. The ruling serves as a firm reminder that heavy workloads and missing transcripts are not acceptable excuses for delaying justice.

The Facts of the Case

The complainant, Arnold G. Tecson, was charged with violation of Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262 (the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Trece Martires City, Cavite, Branch 23. At the time, Tecson was employed as a draftsman in Doha, Qatar, under a contract effective until September 2011.

The RTC issued a Hold-Departure Order against Tecson, which prevented him from leaving the country. His motion for reconsideration was denied. On October 10, 2013, the RTC rendered a Decision finding Tecson guilty beyond reasonable doubt. He received a copy of the decision on November 4, 2013, and filed a Notice of Appeal on the same day.

Nearly a year later, in October 2014, Tecson wrote to the CA to inquire about the status of his appeal. The CA responded that it had not yet received the records of his case. Tecson then wrote to the respondent, Atty. Maricel Lilled Asuncion-Roxas, Clerk of Court of Branch 23, requesting that the records be transmitted to the CA within five days. Still, the records were not sent.

The Issue

The central issue was whether the respondent was guilty of gross neglect of duty for the delay in transmitting the records of the criminal case to the CA.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found the respondent guilty of gross neglect of duty and imposed a fine of P15,000.00.

The Court cited Section 8, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, which provides that within five days from the filing of the notice of appeal, the clerk of court must transmit the complete record of the case, together with the notice, to the clerk of court of the appellate court. The transcripts of stenographic notes must also be transmitted without undue delay.

In this case, the respondent transmitted the records to the CA only on February 23, 2015—more than a year after the notice of appeal was filed on November 4, 2013. The Court found this delay "unreasonably long" and held that it "unquestionably amounts to gross neglect of duty considering that the case involves the right of an accused to appeal his conviction to the CA."

The respondent's defenses—heavy workload and misplaced transcripts—were rejected as "downright flimsy." The Court noted that while trial courts are indeed heavily laden with cases, this does not serve as a convenient excuse to evade administrative liability. Otherwise, every government employee faced with negligence charges would resort to the same excuse.

The Court also cited prior jurisprudence, including Judge Fuentes v. Atty. Fabro, Bellena v. Judge Perello, and Goforth v. Huelar, Jr., where clerks of court and judges were penalized for delays in transmitting records to the CA. In this case, because the delay involved a criminal case and prolonged the accused's appeal of his conviction, the Court increased the fine recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator from P5,000.00 to P15,000.00.

Practical Takeaways

• The five-day rule is mandatory. Under Section 8, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, clerks of court must transmit the complete record of a criminal case to the appellate court within five days from the filing of the notice of appeal. This period is not merely directory—it is a strict requirement.
• Heavy workload is not a valid excuse. Court personnel cannot evade administrative liability by citing a heavy case load. The Court has repeatedly stressed that such excuses are detrimental to public service and undermine faith in the judiciary.
• Missing transcripts do not justify delay. If transcripts are misplaced, the clerk of court must take steps to locate or reconstruct them promptly, not wait indefinitely before acting.
• Delays harm litigants' rights. In this case, the delay prevented the accused from seeking relief from the CA, including a possible motion to lift the Hold-Departure Order, which affected his employment opportunities abroad.
• Penalties can be significant. Clerks of court found guilty of gross neglect of duty may face fines, and the Court may impose heavier penalties depending on the circumstances, especially when a criminal conviction is at stake.

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