In Marita Cabas v. Atty. Ria Nina L. Sususco and Chief City Prosecutor Emelie Fe Delos Santos, the Supreme Court ruled that neither the investigating prosecutor nor the Chief City Prosecutor were liable for gross neglect of duty despite delays in resolving a case filed by an indigent, as there was no sufficient evidence to prove flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform their duties. This decision clarifies the standard for proving gross neglect of duty among public officials, requiring evidence of willful and intentional disregard of duty, especially in cases involving Republic Act No. 6033, which provides benefits to indigents.

Were Prosecutors Negligent in Handling an Indigent’s Case?

This case arose from an administrative complaint filed by Marita Cabas against Atty. Ria Nina L. Sususco and Prosecutor Emilie Fe Delos Santos, alleging gross dereliction of duty and violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6033. Cabas, an indigent, claimed that the respondents failed to promptly resolve her complaint for malicious prosecution, which she filed after being acquitted of estafa charges. She argued that R.A. No. 6033 mandates that such cases should be resolved within two weeks.

Atty. Sususco countered that she was assigned the case later than the initial filing date, and she issued a resolution recommending dismissal, which was then forwarded for review. Pros. Delos Santos denied negligence, stating she approved the resolution but was on leave for significant periods during the relevant timeframe. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) initially found Pros. Delos Santos guilty of dereliction but later reversed this decision, a determination that the Supreme Court ultimately affirmed.

The Supreme Court emphasized the definition of gross neglect of duty, stating:

Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property. It denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty. In cases involving public officials, gross negligence occurs when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable.

The Court also reiterated the standard of proof required in administrative proceedings, noting that:

In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence, i.e., that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Further, the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in his complaint. The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation likewise cannot be given credence.

Applying these principles, the Court found no sufficient evidence to hold either Atty. Sususco or Pros. Delos Santos administratively liable. The Court highlighted that Atty. Sususco acted promptly once the case was assigned to her, submitting the resolution within a reasonable time frame. The delay in the resolution was not due to her negligence.

Regarding Pros. Delos Santos, the Court found that her delay in approving the resolution did not constitute a flagrant and culpable refusal to perform her duties. The Court acknowledged that Pros. Delos Santos had been on approved leave during much of the period in question, which contributed to the delay. The Court further stated that there was no evidence of malice or bad faith on the part of Pros. Delos Santos in failing to review the resolution promptly. Her failure to act more quickly was attributed to her heavy workload and backlog, rather than a willful disregard of her responsibilities.

Section 4 of R.A. No. 6033 was also considered. It states that:

[A]ny willful or malicious refusal on the part of any fiscal or judge to carry out the provisions of this Act shall constitute sufficient ground for disciplinary action which may include suspension or removal.

However, the Court found no evidence of such malicious refusal in the case, reinforcing the decision to dismiss the charges against Pros. Delos Santos, though she was sternly warned to be more circumspect in the future.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Sususco and Pros. Delos Santos were guilty of gross neglect of duty and violation of R.A. No. 6033 for failing to promptly resolve a case filed by an indigent.
What is gross neglect of duty?	Gross neglect of duty involves a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform a duty, characterized by a lack of even slight care or willful indifference to the consequences.
What standard of proof is required in administrative proceedings?	Administrative proceedings require substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
What is the relevance of R.A. No. 6033?	R.A. No. 6033 provides benefits to indigents, including the requirement that their cases be resolved promptly; willful or malicious refusal to comply with this law can result in disciplinary action.
Was Atty. Sususco found liable in this case?	No, Atty. Sususco was not found liable because she acted promptly after the case was assigned to her and submitted the resolution within a reasonable time.
Was Pros. Delos Santos found liable in this case?	No, Pros. Delos Santos was also not found liable, but she was sternly warned to be more circumspect in the performance of her duties.
Why was Pros. Delos Santos not found liable despite the delay?	The delay was attributed to her approved leave, heavy workload, and the absence of evidence showing malice or bad faith in failing to review the resolution promptly.
What was the Court’s final decision?	The Court affirmed the IBP’s decision to dismiss the charges against both Atty. Sususco and Pros. Delos Santos, but issued a stern warning to Pros. Delos Santos.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of proving willful and intentional neglect in administrative cases against public officials. While promptness is expected, delays caused by legitimate circumstances, such as approved leave and heavy workloads, do not automatically equate to gross neglect of duty. Establishing malice or bad faith is crucial for disciplinary action under R.A. No. 6033.

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: MARITA CABAS VS. ATTY. RIA NINA L. SUSUSCO AND CHIEF CITY PROSECUTOR EMELIE FE DELOS SANTOS, AC No. 8677, June 15, 2016