Você está na página 1de 1

Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel 4. ONG VS. BASIYA-SA A!AN, C"# $ O% CO& !, !

C, I"OI"O CI!Y, B '( )A.*. No. P-1(-'+,+ -%or.erl/ A.*. OCA IPI No. 11-'00(-P1, 2anuar/ +3, (+1'4 P# "AS-B# NAB#, J.5 %AC!S5 On June 13, 2011, Mariano T. Ong (complainant) filed a verified letter-complaint 1 before t e Office of t e !ourt "dmini#trator (O!"), c arging !ler$ of !ourt %va &. 'a#i(a-)aratan (re#pondent) of t e *egional Trial !ourt (*T!) of +loilo !it(, 'ranc 32 for inefficienc( and,or negligence in t e performance of er official dutie#. !omplainant averred t at re#pondent repeatedl( failed to i##ue "lia# -rit# of %.ecution for almo#t t ree (3) (ear# from t e time # e /a# fir#t directed to do #o b( t e *T! in it# Order dated )eptember 20, 2001 in !ivil !a#e 2o. 11341.crala/librar( !omplainant i# one of t e defendant#,5udgment obligee# in t e 6eci#ion in t e amount of 71008 repre#enting damage# and attorne(9# fee#. To implement t e 5udgment, t e *T! i##ued t e Order dated "pril 2:, 2000 granting t e i##uance of t e /rit of e.ecution. )ince t e 5udgment a# remained un#ati#fied, complainant moved for t e i##uance of an "lia# -rit of %.ecution, / ic /a# granted b( t e *T! in it# Order dated )eptember 20, 2001, /it a furt er directive to t e ) eriff of t e *T! of ;alen<uela !it(, 'ranc 42 to proceed again#t plaintiff9# attac ment bond i##ued b( 7rudential &uarantee and "##urance, +nc.:=>r?@l1 On 2ovember 20, 2010 or after t e lap#e of more t an t/o (2) (ear# /it no action on t e part of re#pondent, t e *T! again directed t e i##uance of an "lia# -rit of %.ecution and it# implementation b( ) eriff *omero A. *ivera () eriff *ivera). 2ot/it #tanding, re#pondent did not i##ue an(, prompting complainant to file a B;er( Crgent Motion to 'e Durni# ed !ertified True !op( of "lia# -rit of %.ecution, / ic t e *T! granted in Januar( 1:, 2011. 4=>r Cpon evaluation of t e complaint, t e O!" found re#pondent to ave been remi## in t e performance of er dutie# a# !ler$ of !ourt of t e *T! of +loilo !it(, 'ranc 32, in violation of )ection 1, !anon +; of t e !ode of !onduct for !ourt 7er#onnel, under#coring er failure to i##ue t e corre#ponding "lia# -rit# of %.ecution a# directed b( t e *T! a# /ell a# er failure to comment on t e allegation# of t e complainant. T e O!" al#o noted t at t i# i# not t e fir#t time re#pondent ad failed to perform er official function#. +n anot er complaint filed again#t er b( "tt(. *aul ". Mu(co, # e /a# reprimanded b( t e !ourt for er failure to i##ue on time a certification reEue#ted b( t e complainant, and #ternl( /arned t at t e commi##ion of #imilar act# /ould be dealt /it more #everel(. "ccordingl(, t e O!", appl(ing *ule +; of t e Cniform *ule# on "dmini#trative !a#e# in t e !ivil )ervice, 1F=>r?@l1 recommended er #u#pen#ion from t e #ervice for #i. (0) mont # and one (1) da( /it out pa(, /it a #tern /arning t at a repetition of t e #ame or an( #imilar act /ill /arrant a more #evere penalt(.

Issue T e #ole i##ue before t e !ourt i# / et er re#pondent # ould be impo#ed t e penalt( a# recommended b( t e O!" for er repeated failure to i##ue t e corre#ponding alia# /rit# of e.ecution de#pite directive# from t e *T!. 6#"75 T e !ourt find# t e recommendation of t e O!" to be /ell-ta$en. )ection 1, !anon +; of t e !ode of !onduct for !ourt 7er#onnel 10 en5oin# court per#onnel to perform t eir official dutie# properl( and /it diligence at all time#. !ler$# of !ourt li$e re#pondent are primaril( re#pon#ible for t e #peed( and efficient #ervice of all court proce##e# and /rit#. Gence, t e( cannot be allo/ed to #lac$en on t eir /or$ #ince t e( are c arged /it t e dut( of $eeping t e record# and t e #eal of t e court, i##uing proce##e#, entering 5udgment# and order#, and giving certified copie# of record# upon reEue#t. "# #uc , t e( are e.pected to po##e## a ig degree of di#cipline and efficienc( in t e performance of t eir function# to elp en#ure t at t e cau#e of 5u#tice i# done /it out dela(. 14=>r?@l1 "# an officer of t e court, re#pondent /a# dut(-bound to u#e rea#onable #$ill and diligence in t e performance of er officiall(de#ignated dutie# a# cler$ of court, failing / ic , /arrant# t e impo#ition of admini#trative #anction#. +n t i# ca#e, re#pondent un5u#tifiabl( failed to i##ue t e alia# /rit# of e.ecution to implement t e 5udgment in !ivil !a#e 2o. 11341 de#pite order# from t e *T!. Moreover, # e failed to file t e reEuired comment in di#regard of t e dut( of ever( emplo(ee in t e 5udiciar( to obe( t e order# and proce##e# of t e !ourt /it out dela(. )uc act evince# lac$ of intere#t in clearing er name, con#tituting an implied admi##ion of t e c arge#. @l1 !on#eEuentl(, t e !ourt find# er guilt( of refu#al to perform official dut( cla##ified a# a grave offen#e under )ection F2(")(11) of t e *evi#ed Cniform *ule# on "dmini#trative !a#e# in t e !ivil )ervice, puni# able /it #u#pen#ion of #i. (0) mont # and one (1) da( to one (1) (ear for t e fir#t offen#e and b( di#mi##al for t e #econd offen#e. 86# #%O #, t e !ourt find# re#pondent A!!Y. #VA G. BASIYA-SA A!AN G&I"!Y of refusal to 9erfor. official dut/ and accordingl(, S&SP#N7S er from office for si: -01 .onths and one -11 da/ ;ithout 9a/ effective immediatel( upon receipt of t i# re#olution. ) e i# S!# N"Y 8A N#7 once again t at a commi##ion of t e #ame or #imilar offen#e in t e future # all be dealt /it more #everel(.