Withdrawal of an Administrative Complaint Does Not Stop the Supreme Court's Discipline of Court Personnel

The Supreme Court's disciplinary power over court personnel does not depend on the willingness of a complainant to keep pursuing a case. In Casanova, Jr. v. Cajayon (A.M. No. P-02-1595, April 3, 2003), the Court reprimanded a court clerk for failing to submit required docket inventories on time, even though the complainant had withdrawn the complaint. The ruling matters to anyone who assumes that an administrative case disappears once the person who filed it walks away.

The complaint and the allegations

Timoteo M. Casanova, Jr., then Officer-in-Charge Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, Branch 45, filed a verified letter-complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator against Felizardo P. Cajayon, Clerk III of the same branch.

The complaint alleged neglect of duty, inefficiency and incompetence, refusal to perform official duties, refusal to obey lawful orders, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Casanova claimed that Cajayon often reported late and did little work in the office, and that he failed to prepare monthly reports of cases despite instructions from his supervisors.

Casanova also alleged that Cajayon received but ignored communications from the Office of the Court Administrator, including a telegram requiring submission of his daily time records and a later telegram requiring semestral docket inventories for several periods.

The respondent's defense

Cajayon denied the accusations. He maintained that he was punctual, as shown by his daily time records, and that he diligently performed his duties even after his promotion to Clerk III in 1994. He said he had complied with the requirement to submit his time records and had already submitted the case inventory through a letter-endorsement dated January 29, 1999.

What the investigating judges found

The case was referred to Executive Judge Ernesto Pagayatan for investigation. He recommended dismissal of the complaint based on its withdrawal and on the respondent's undertaking to improve his performance.

The Court Administrator, however, cited Gacho v. Fuentes, Jr. (353 Phil. 665, 1998) for the rule that withdrawal of an administrative complaint does not result in its automatic dismissal. He recommended reinvestigation, which was assigned to Judge Inocencio M. Jaurigue of RTC Branch 44, Mamburao.

Judge Jaurigue found that the complaint arose from a misunderstanding between the parties and recommended that both complainant and respondent be reprimanded, with a warning. The Office of the Court Administrator adopted that recommendation.

The ruling

The Court agreed in part but rejected the recommended penalty on the complainant.

On the charge of tardiness and absenteeism, the Court found no supporting evidence. The respondent's daily time reports were in fact countersigned by the complainant himself, and they showed neither absence nor tardiness for the periods alleged. His performance rating for January to June 1995 was "Very Satisfactory," which the Court said belied the claim that he had been remiss in his duties.

The Court did find Cajayon liable for failing to submit the required Docket Inventory on time, a fact he admitted. His justification — a heavy caseload — was rejected. The Court stressed that the office of a clerk of court involves delicate administrative duties essential to the prompt and proper administration of justice.

On the complainant, the Court held that a reprimand could not be imposed based on a motu proprio finding without violating the constitutional right of a person to be informed of the nature of the charge against him. It noted that Section 14(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution protects this right. Instead, the Court admonished Casanova for trifling with the Court's time.

Why withdrawal does not end the case

The Court was emphatic that a complainant cannot control an administrative case against court personnel. Citing Lapeña v. Pamarang (382 Phil. 325, 2000), it held that withdrawal of a complaint for lack of interest does not necessarily warrant dismissal of an administrative complaint, because the Court cannot be bound by the unilateral decision of a complainant to desist from prosecuting a case involving the discipline of parties under its administrative supervision.

Citing Nones v. Ormita (A.M. No. P-01-1532, October 9, 2002), the Court added that public faith and confidence in government must be maintained, and that the people should not depend on the whims and caprices of complainants who, in a real sense, are only witnesses. The Court also reminded all judicial officers and employees to preserve the judiciary's good name, from the judge to the lowliest clerk.

Practical takeaways

• Withdrawing an administrative complaint against court personnel does not automatically terminate the case; the Supreme Court may continue to act on its own administrative supervision.
• A heavy caseload is not a valid excuse for failing to submit required docket inventories and monthly reports on time.
• Performance ratings and daily time records countersigned by a supervisor can defeat allegations of tardiness or absenteeism.
• A person may not be penalized on a ground he was never charged with; the right to be informed of the charge is constitutionally protected.
• Even minor lapses in the submission of court reports can lead to a reprimand and a stern warning of heavier penalties for repetition.

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