MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed a Clerk III from government service for habitual tardiness and absences that caused delays in court proceedings, including the service of subpoenas, orders, and other court processes.

In a nine-page decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr., the SC En Banc found Philip Lagac, Clerk III of Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court in Trece Martires City, Cavite, guilty of gross neglect of duty and gross insubordination.

The high court imposed the penalty of dismissal from service, forfeiture of all retirement benefits, and a fine of P101,000.

The case stemmed from a verified affidavit-complaint filed by then Presiding Judge Emily Alino-Geluz, now an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, who observed that delays in criminal case proceedings were largely due to Lagac’s negligence in performing his duties.

Lagac was cited for failing to maintain a systematic filing of criminal case records, disobeying directives to issue subpoenas that led to case resets, failing to attach bail bond documents to case records, and failing to produce records of criminal cases involving detention prisoners.

He was also repeatedly warned over habitual tardiness and absences, which further worsened the backlog of work in the court. Despite reminders, Lagac continued to be remiss in his duties, prompting Judge Alino-Geluz to file administrative cases against him for gross negligence, inefficiency, and insubordination.

The Judicial Integrity Board found Lagac administratively liable for gross neglect of duty and gross insubordination, noting that his actions prevented the court from achieving the expeditious and timely administration of justice and contributed to a clogged docket.

In affirming the findings, the Supreme Court held that Lagac’s failure to perform his responsibilities as Clerk In-Charge, particularly in record-keeping and the issuance of subpoenas, constituted gross neglect of duty. It also found him guilty of gross insubordination for his continued disregard of lawful and reasonable instructions from his superior despite repeated reminders.

The court defined gross insubordination as the unjustified refusal to obey orders a superior is entitled to give, showing a willful or intentional disregard of authority.

In imposing the ultimate penalty, the SC stressed that both gross neglect of duty and gross insubordination are classified as serious charges under the Rules of Court.

The high court reminded court employees that they serve as sentinels of justice, and that any act of impropriety undermines public trust in the judiciary. It emphasized that it will not hesitate to discipline erring court personnel.