For misplacing the records of a case under him, Judge Reynaldo Alon of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 40, Silay City was found guilty by the Supreme Court of gross negligence and fined him P10,000.

"We find respondent judge administratively liable for gross negligence in misplacing the records of a case for his investigation, report, and recommendation," the SC said in its decision promulgated on June 27. It is the judge's duty to ensure that records of such nature be properly kept and disposed of promptly and expeditiously, bearing in mind that the Court prescribed a 60-day period within which to comply, the SC said.

"It was bad enough that respondent failed to submit his investigation, report, and recommendation within the prescribed period, but to also lose the records of the case is unjustifiable," the SC said. .

The SC issued a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely.

The administrative case is an offshoot of the administrative complaint of Lina Lim Tan against Homero L. Robles, Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 69, Silay City and docketed as A.M. OCA IPI No. 01-1167-P.

The SC in a July 1, 2002, resolution referred the administrative complaint to Alon for investigation, report, and recommendation within 60 days from receipt of the records.

Alon submitted his investigation, report, and recommendation on May 13, 2005, or almost three years from the date of the resolution requiring him to do so, the SC said.

The SC then directed Alon to explain the unreasonable delay in rendering his report.

Alon said he had not given much thought about the case and among several causes of the delay was his being replaced as executive judge in 2003 and being re-appointed only in April 2005, in addition to his tasks as judge designate of Branch 63, La Carlota City, the SC noted.

Alon's asseveration that the delay in the disposition of the administrative case was due to the request of the complainant that the investigation be held in abeyance until the affidavit of retraction shall have been filed, is untenable, the SC also said.

Respondent should have known that an affidavit of desistance does not operate to divest this Court of jurisdiction to determine the truth behind the matter stated in the complaint, the SC said.

The Court's disciplinary authority cannot be dependent on or frustrated by private arrangements between parties, it added.

Respondent should have, therefore, met the issue head-on without any further delay, the SC said.

The delay of almost three years in the submission of his report and recommendation clearly shows that respondent was remiss in his obligation to act promptly and expeditiously on his official duties, the SC added.

"We find respondent judge administratively liable for gross negligence in misplacing the records of case for his investigation, report, and recommendation." the SC said.

The resolution was penned by Associate Justice Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez and concurred in by Associate Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Minita Chico-Nazario and Antonio Eduardo Nachura.*CPG

back to top