see - sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/january2013/P-12-3090.pdf
"x x x.
The Court’s Ruling
The Court finds the recommendation of the OCA to be well-taken.
Section 1, Canon IV of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel enjoins court personnel to perform their official duties properly and with
diligence at all times. Clerks of Court like respondent are primarily
responsible for the speedy and efficient service of all court processes and
writs. Hence, they cannot be allowed to slacken on their work since they are charged with the duty of keeping the records and the seal of the court,
issuing processes, entering judgments and orders, and giving certified copies of records upon request. xxx.
As an officer of the court, respondent was duty-bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in the performance of her officially-designated duties as clerk of court, failing which, warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions. In this case, respondent unjustifiably failed to issue the alias writs of execution to implement the judgment in Civil Case No. 18978 despite orders from the RTC. Moreover, she failed to file the
required comment in disregard of the duty of every employee in the
judiciary to obey the orders and processes of the Court without delay. Such
act evinces lack of interest in clearing her name, constituting an implied
admission of the charges.
Consequently, the Court finds her guilty of refusal to perform official
duty classified as a grave offense under Section 52(A)(18) of the Revised
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, punishable
with suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the
first offense and by dismissal for the second offense.
x x x."
