In Office of the Court Administrator v. Imelda S. Perlez, the Supreme Court addressed the administrative responsibilities of a Clerk of Court in ensuring the timely submission of stenographic notes and proper management of court records. The Court found Imelda S. Perlez, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 2, San Pedro, Laguna, guilty of simple neglect of duty for failing to adequately supervise court stenographers, particularly concerning the transcription of stenographic notes in several cases. Perlez was suspended for one month and one day without pay. This decision underscores the importance of diligent supervision by Clerks of Court to uphold the efficiency and integrity of judicial processes.
Supervisory Neglect: When a Clerk’s Inaction Leads to Judicial Delay
This case arose from a complaint filed by Judge Gloria B. Aglugub against Imelda S. Perlez, the Clerk of Court, alleging a failure to submit transcripts of stenographic notes and the disappearance of case records, which impeded the judge’s ability to decide nineteen cases within the prescribed period. Perlez defended herself by stating that the delay was primarily due to the negligence of stenographer Jennifer Lancion. Judge Aglugub, on the other hand, presented evidence showing a pattern of non-compliance and missing records, for which she had issued multiple orders to Perlez.
The Supreme Court referenced Administrative Circular No. 21-90, emphasizing the explicit duty of Clerks of Court to supervise stenographers and ensure compliance with Rule 136, Section 17 of the Rules of Court, which requires timely transcription and submission of stenographic notes. The circular mandates:
“1. Clerks of Court and stenographers are enjoined to faithfully comply with Rule 136, Section 17, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Court…
2 (a) All the stenographers are required to transcribe all stenographic notes and to attach the transcripts to the record of the case not later than twenty (20) days from the time the notes are taken…
(b) The stenographer concerned shall accomplish a verified monthly certification as to compliance with this duty. In the absence of such certification, or for failure and/or refusal to submit, his salary shall be withheld.”
The Court found that Perlez had not taken adequate steps to address the stenographer’s non-compliance, such as reporting the issue to the judge or recommending the withholding of the stenographer’s salary. Building on this principle, the Court affirmed that as the administrative officer of the court, the Clerk of Court is charged with the control and supervision of subordinate personnel, including stenographers.
Despite the Court Administrator’s recommendation to find Perlez guilty of insubordination, the Supreme Court opted to find her guilty of simple neglect of duty instead. The distinction rested on the assessment that Perlez’s failure to supervise was not necessarily willful or intentional, particularly as this appeared to be her first offense. Considering the nature of the infraction, the Court deemed a suspension of one month and one day without pay a sufficient penalty. Moreover, the Court clarified that allegations regarding missing court records would be addressed separately under A.M. No. P-99-1348.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The key issue was whether the Clerk of Court, Imelda S. Perlez, adequately fulfilled her administrative responsibilities in supervising court stenographers and ensuring the proper management of court records. |
| What did the Court decide? | The Court found Perlez guilty of simple neglect of duty and suspended her for one month and one day without pay, emphasizing her failure to adequately supervise the stenographers. |
| What is Administrative Circular No. 21-90? | Administrative Circular No. 21-90 outlines the duties of Clerks of Court and stenographers regarding the timely transcription and submission of stenographic notes, as well as the consequences of non-compliance. |
| What is the Clerk of Court’s role regarding stenographers’ duties? | The Clerk of Court is responsible for supervising stenographers to ensure they transcribe and submit notes within 20 days and comply with certification requirements, reporting any non-compliance to the judge. |
| What is simple neglect of duty? | Simple neglect of duty involves a failure to exercise the care expected of a reasonable person, without malicious intent or willfulness, in the performance of one’s duties. |
| What was the penalty imposed on Perlez? | Perlez was suspended for one month and one day without pay, with a warning that further infractions would result in more severe penalties. |
| Why wasn’t Perlez found guilty of insubordination? | The Court determined that Perlez’s failure was due to a lack of effective supervision rather than a willful refusal to obey a direct order, classifying it as simple neglect of duty instead. |
| What happened to the allegations about missing court records? | The allegations concerning missing court records were addressed separately in Administrative Matter No. P-99-1348, so they were not included in this decision. |
The decision in Office of the Court Administrator v. Imelda S. Perlez serves as a clear reminder to Clerks of Court about their crucial supervisory roles. It reinforces the importance of diligence in ensuring that subordinate personnel comply with their duties to maintain an efficient and reliable judicial system. This diligence contributes significantly to public trust in the judicial system.
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: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. IMELDA S. PERLEZ, A.M. No. P-00-1428, January 18, 2001