EN BANC.
.
NOEL G. WABE,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
P-03-1760
(formerly A.M.
No.
01-1223-P)
December 30, 2003
-versus-
LUISITA P.
BIONSON,
CLERK OF COURT OF MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT IN
CITIES,
MALAYBALAY CITY,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
The administrative
case before us arose upon the filing of a verified Letter-Complaint[1]
dated September 17, 2001 against Luisita P. Bionson, Clerk of Court,
Municipal
Trial Court in Cities of Malaybalay City, for grave misconduct. Noel G.
Wabe, the complainant, alleged that the respondent acted without
authority
in issuing summons before a case was even filed, and in adding certain
amounts to be paid by the defendant where none were awarded in the
judgment,
thus:
Firstly,
she issued a Summons to my wife, Flora A. Wabe dated November 15, 1999
when there was as yet no case filed against her, copy of Summons hereto
attached as Annex "A", as the case was filed only on May 12, 2000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Secondly,
when the judgment was rendered, copy attached as Annex "B", only the
following
sums were awarded Plaintiff:
a.
P10,000.00
as actual damages;
b. Interest of
the above
(6%) beginning December 30, 1998 (when this should correctly begin on
May
12, 2000, the date of the filing of the case;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
c. P1,000.00 as
litigation
expenses plus cost.
That in the Writ
of
Execution, however, Luisita P. Bionson added the following sums:
a. The
legal
rate of interest was to begin October 17, 1998 and increased to 10% in
violation of the judgment and the law, as well.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
b. Exemplary
damages
of P1,000.00 was added where none was awarded; and
c. Attorney's
fees of
P1,000.00 was, likewise, added when none was awarded.[2]
In her Comment, the
respondent
admitted the error in the issuance of the Writ of Execution[3]
dated August 14, 2001, but was quick to point out that by reason of the
Opposition filed by therein defendant Flora A. Wabe, the writ was
recalled
and a new one, September 24, 2001 was issued in its place. There was,
however,
no explanation with respect to the issuance of summons to complainant's
wife notwithstanding the absence of a complaint for sum of money.
On February 21, 2002,
Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock found that the
respondent's
plain admission would not exonerate her from the charges leveled
against
her. Deputy Court Administrator Lock noted that the errors made were so
glaring that they were not made through mere inadvertence, and
recommended
that the respondent be suspended for one (1) month, with a stern
warning
that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future be dealt
with
more severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In a Resolution[4]
dated March 31, 2003, the instant case was assigned to Executive Judge
Rolando S. Venadas, Sr., Regional Trial Court, Malaybalay City,
Bukidnon,
for investigation, report and recommendation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondent, through
counsel, manifested to the Court that the sending of summons even
before
the actual filing of the complaint had been a long standing practice of
the court, dating back to the time of previous judges.[5]
The respondent also presented documents[6]
issued by her and/or previous judges as proof thereof, contending that
these were all issued to call the parties to the case for possible
settlement
without resorting to actual trial, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Q The Writ
of Execution in "Paña v. Wabe" for which you are being charged
here
does not tally with the judgment. For example, the payment for the
interest
is 10 percent whereas in the judgment the interest is only 6 percent,
can
you explain that?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A I admit that
mistake
but that is without malice. The truth being that our court is only one
sala and I am very busy so that when the stenographer presented that
Writ
of Execution to me, I signed it knowing that my stenographer can be
trusted
and is an honest employee.[7]
Executive Judge
Venadas,
Sr., thereafter, submitted his Report and Recommendation dated
September
22, 2003, and made the following findings:
Evidently
and
without any doubt whatsoever, the respondent issued the said summons
(Exhibit
"B") without any legal authority or basis as emphasized under Section 1
of Rule 14 of the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows only the issuance of a
summons
upon filing of a complaint and payment of the requisite legal fees.
Hence,
if no complaint is filed and no payment of the required fees is made, a
Clerk of Court has no authority whatsoever to issue any summons and
could
be guilty of Grave Abuse of Authority under her "adjudicative support
function
to prepare and sign summons, subpoenas and notices and writs of
execution
in Civil Cases.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
What is to be
noted
further was that the respondent still went on to commit another serious
violation which can never be justified by any amount of reasoning or
logic
for clearly it was against the very decision of the MTCC she was
serving
as Clerk of Court by issuing a Writ of Execution, duly signed by her as
Clerk of Court, on August 15, 2001 (Exhibit "I") directing the Sheriff
of Bukidnon to seize and attach properties of the defendant Flora Wabe
for the satisfaction of the following:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a) The
sum
of P10,000.00 with legal rate of interest from October 17, 1998, until
date of payment of the rate of 10% per annum;
b) Exemplary
damages
of P1,000.00 and
c) Litigation
expenses
of P1,000.00 plus
d) Attorney's
fees of
P1,000.00 together with legal fees
when the Judgment of
the
MTCC of Malaybalay was only for the following: "To pay actual damage of
P10,000.00 and interest of 6% per annum of the collective amount
computed
from December 30, 1998, until the amount to be paid and to pay expenses
of litigation of P1,000.00.
Clearly, the
foregoing
conduct and actuation of the respondent was in violation of her
adjudicative
support functions to prepare and sign summons and writs of execution as
a Clerk of Court and her authority should always be and at all times in
accordance with the dispositive portion of the decision of the Court
she
is serving as a Clerk of Court.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For issuing
summons
to a party without a case being filed, and for including awards in the
writ of execution not included in the decision or judgment of the
court,
the respondent clearly acted beyond the scope of her duties as a clerk
of court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A clerk of court
shall
issue summons only upon the filing of the complaint and the payment of
the requisite legal fees.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Section 1, Rule 14
of
the 1997
Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "upon the filing of the
complaint
and the payment of the requisite legal fees, the clerk of court shall
forthwith
issue the corresponding summons to the defendants." This rule is clear,
and it is the duty of the clerk of court to abide by it. The respondent
needs no reminder that as an important officer in the dispensation of
justice,
one of her primary duties is to uphold the law and implement pertinent
rules. He must be assiduous in the performance of his duties because he
performs delicate administrative functions essential to the prompt and
proper administration of justice.[9]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondent
usurped
a judicial function when she issued an "amended" writ of execution.
The dispositive
portion
of the Decision[10]
in Civil Case No. 1346 dated June 26, 2001 reads as follows:
By
preponderance
of evidence judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff ordering
defendant to pay the following:
1. By
way of
actual damages Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos and;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2. To pay
interest of
six (6%) percent per annum of the collectible amount computed from
December
30, 1998 until the amount will be paid and to pay expenses of
litigation
of One Thousand (P1,000.00) pesos plus cost.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[11]
On the other hand, the
writ of execution issued and duly signed by the respondent in the same
case reads, thus:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WRIT OF EXECUTION
We command
you that of the goods and chattels of FLORA A. WABE you cause to be
made
the sum of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency,
together
with the legal rate of interest thereon from the 17th day of October
1998,
until the date of payment of the rate of ten (10%) percent per annum;
and
Exemplary damage of One Thousand (P1,000.00) pesos and litigation
expenses
of One Thousand (P1,000.00) Pesos plus attorney's fees of One Thousand
(P1,000.00) Pesos together with your lawful fees for service of this
execution
all in the money of the Philippines, which amount shall be recovered in
our City Court on the 15th day of September 2001 against said defendant
and that you tender the same to said plaintiff aside from your own fees
on this execution and to likewise return this writ to this Court within
sixty (60) days from the date of receipt hereof with your proceedings
indorsed
thereon.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
But if sufficient
personal
property cannot be found whereof to satisfy this execution and lawful
fees
thereon, then you are commanded that of the lands and buildings of the
said defendant you cause to be made the sum of money in the manner
required
by law and the Rules of Court and to make return of your proceedings
with
this writ within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt hereof.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondent, thus,
issued
a writ of execution and included awards not contained in the judgment
of
the court. As we held in Equatorial Realty Development, Inc., v.
Mayfair
Theater, Inc.:[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A writ of execution
must conform to the judgment to be executed and adhere strictly to the
very essential particulars. An order of execution, which varies the
tenor
of the judgment or exceeds the terms thereof is a nullity. The writ of
execution may not vary the terms of the judgment it seeks to enforce.
Nor
may it go beyond the terms of the judgment sought to be executed. Where
the execution is not in harmony with the judgment which gives life, and
in fact exceeds it, has pro tanto no validity. To maintain otherwise
would
be to ignore the constitutional provision against depriving a person of
his property without due process of law x x x[14]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In issuing process,
a clerk of court must adhere to the express directive of the court and
refrain from exercising functions exclusively within the province of
the
judge to act upon. Before he or she can amend the writ, the court's
order
granting its issuance should first be amended.[15]
By amending the writ on her own initiative, the respondent clearly
usurped
a judicial function.[16]
The fact that the respondent admitted the error, and that a new writ
was
thereafter issued cannot exculpate her from the charges against her.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The respondent is guilty
of misconduct, which is defined as any unlawful conduct on the part of
a person concerned in the administration of justice prejudicial to the
rights of parties or to the right determination of the cause. It
generally
means wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a
premeditated,
obstinate or intentional purpose.[17]
Civil Service Commission (CSC) Memorandum Circular No. 19 classifies
misconduct
as a less grave offense, punishable by suspension without pay for one
(1)
month and one (1) day to six (6) months, for the first offense.
Considering
the respondent's long years of service in the government and the fact
that
no bad faith was attributed to her, the Court finds that the penalty of
suspension for three (3) months is proper in this case.cralaw:red
Clerks of court must
be reminded that they are essential and ranking officers of our
judicial
system who perform delicate administrative functions vital to the
prompt
and proper administration of justice.[18]
They serve as an exemplar for other court employees, whose duties and
responsibilities
must be strictly performed. They play a key role in the complement of
the
court and cannot be permitted to slacken on the job under one pretext
or
another.[19]
In fact, the conduct of all those involved in the dispensation of
justice,
from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, must at all times be
beyond
reproach. The Court condemns and cannot countenance any act or omission
on the part of court personnel that would violate the norm of public
accountability
and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in
the
judiciary.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, respondent
Luisita P. Bionson, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
Malaybalay
City, is adjudged GUILTY of MISCONDUCT and is suspended for Three (3)
Months
with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in
the
future shall be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Quisumbing,
Austria-Martinez
and Tinga, JJ., concur.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Rollo, p. 2.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Exhibit "I."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, p. 20.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
TSN, 21 July 2003, pp. 10–13.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Exhibits "N-1" to "N-25."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Affidavit-Testimony, p. 3 (Bionson).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Report and Recommendation, pp. 26–30.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
Elena F. Pace v. Reno M. Leonardo, A.M. No. P-03-1675, August 6, 2003.
[10]
Entitled Ma. Olga Paña v. Flora A. Wabe, penned by Judge
Benjamin
P. Estrada.
[11]
Annex "B-1," Rollo, p. 6 (emphasis ours).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Annex "C," Rollo, p. 9 (Emphasis supplied.).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
332 SCRA 139 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Id. at 148–149.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Santos v. Silva, Jr., 349 SCRA 426 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
Ibid., citing Viray v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 468 (1998).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Executive Judge Leandro TLoyao, Jr. v. Mamerto JCaube, A.M. No.
P-02-1599,
April 30, 2003.
[18]
Reyes-Domingo v. Morales, 342 SCRA 6 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Supra, at note 8.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Almario v. Resus, 318 SCRA 742 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |