In Tecson v. Asuncion-Roxas, the Supreme Court held that a Clerk of Court’s failure to promptly transmit records to the Court of Appeals (CA) constitutes gross neglect of duty. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to the speedy disposition of cases, particularly those involving an individual’s right to appeal a conviction. The Court emphasized that delays in the administration of justice, regardless of their brevity, can undermine public trust in the legal system and deprive litigants of their rights.

Justice Delayed: When a Clerk’s Inaction Hampers an Appeal

Arnold G. Tecson filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Maricel Lilled Asuncion-Roxas, the Clerk of Court VI at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Trece Martires City, Cavite, Branch 23, for gross neglect of duty. The case stemmed from the respondent’s failure to promptly transmit the records of Tecson’s criminal case to the Court of Appeals after he had filed a notice of appeal. Tecson had been convicted by the RTC for violating Section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 9262, also known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004. Following his conviction, Tecson filed a notice of appeal. However, the records of his case were not transmitted to the CA in a timely manner, hindering his ability to pursue his appeal.

Tecson’s appeal was significantly delayed due to the respondent’s inaction. He then sent a letter to the CA inquiring about the status of his appeal. The CA informed him that the records of his case had not yet been received. Despite a formal request to the Clerk of Court to transmit the records, no action was taken. This delay prevented Tecson from filing motions with the CA, including one to lift a Hold-Departure Order. As a result, he was unable to accept an employment offer in Nigeria.

The Supreme Court, in examining the facts, centered its analysis on Section 8, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, which explicitly dictates the procedure for transmitting documents to the appellate court upon appeal. This section states:

Sec. 8. Transmission of papers to appellate court upon appeal. — Within five (5) days from the filing of the notice of appeal, the clerk of the court with whom the notice of appeal was filed must transmit to the clerk of court of the appellate court the complete record of the case, together with said notice. The original and three copies of the transcript of stenographic notes, together with the records, shall also be transmitted to the clerk of the appellate court without undue delay. The other copy of the transcript shall remain in the lower court. (Emphasis ours)

The Court found that the respondent had only transmitted the complete records of the case to the CA more than a year after Tecson filed his notice of appeal. This failure was a clear violation of the procedural rules and a disservice to the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that such delays undermine public faith in the judiciary and deprive litigants of their right to a speedy resolution of their cases. The duty to transmit records promptly is not merely a procedural formality; it is a critical step in ensuring that the appellate process functions efficiently and fairly.

The respondent attempted to justify her inaction by citing a heavy workload and the misplacement of transcripts of stenographic notes (TSN). However, the Court rejected these defenses as flimsy and insufficient to excuse her dereliction of duty. The Court acknowledged that trial courts often face significant workloads. The Court however, clarified that a heavy workload could not be used as a shield against administrative liability. To permit such excuses would be to the detriment of public service, setting a precedent that would allow negligence and dereliction of duty to go unpunished.

The Supreme Court referenced several prior cases to contextualize the appropriate penalty for the respondent’s misconduct. In Judge Fuentes v. Atty. Fabro, a clerk of court was fined P20,000.00 for failing to transmit records within the prescribed period. Similarly, in Bellena v. Judge Perello, a judge was fined P20,000.00 for undue delay in transmitting records. In Goforth v. Huelar, Jr., a respondent was fined P15,000.00 for a similar offense. These cases illustrate the Court’s consistent stance on the importance of timely action by court personnel and the consequences of failing to meet their responsibilities.

Acknowledging the severity of the delay and its impact on the complainant’s right to appeal, the Court increased the fine recommended by the OCA from P5,000.00 to P15,000.00. This increase was intended to reflect the gravity of the respondent’s neglect and the importance of upholding the right to a speedy appeal, particularly in criminal cases.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Clerk of Court’s failure to promptly transmit records of a criminal case to the Court of Appeals constituted gross neglect of duty.
What is the prescribed period for transmitting records to the appellate court?	Section 8, Rule 122 of the Rules of Court mandates that the clerk of court transmit the complete record of the case to the appellate court within five days from the filing of the notice of appeal.
What was the respondent’s defense in this case?	The respondent claimed that her heavy workload and the misplacement of transcripts of stenographic notes (TSN) contributed to the delay.
Did the Supreme Court accept the respondent’s defense?	No, the Court rejected the respondent’s defenses, stating that a heavy workload cannot excuse dereliction of duty and that such excuses would be detrimental to public service.
What penalty did the Supreme Court impose on the respondent?	The Court found the respondent guilty of gross neglect of duty and imposed a fine of P15,000.00, with a warning that any repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.
Why did the Court increase the fine recommended by the OCA?	The Court increased the fine to reflect the gravity of the respondent’s neglect and the importance of upholding the right to a speedy appeal, particularly in criminal cases.
What is the significance of this ruling?	This ruling reinforces the importance of timely action by court personnel in ensuring the efficient and fair administration of justice, particularly in appellate proceedings.
What happens if court personnel fail to transmit records promptly?	Failure to transmit records promptly can result in administrative sanctions, including fines and other disciplinary measures, as demonstrated in this case.

This case serves as a critical reminder to all court personnel of their duty to act with diligence and efficiency in the performance of their duties. The prompt transmission of records is essential to ensuring that litigants have access to a fair and speedy appellate process. Failure to meet this obligation can have significant consequences for both the individuals involved and the public’s perception of the judiciary.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ARNOLD G. TECSON VS. ATTY. MARICEL LILLED ASUNCION-ROXAS, A.M. No. P-16-3515, August 10, 2016