SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-01-1528. December 7, 2001]
CELESTIAL D. REYES, complainant, vs. ERLINDA M. PATIAG, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court, Gapan, Nueva Ecija, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a complaint for misconduct
and discourtesy. Respondent Erlinda Patiag is Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial
Court, Gapan, Nueva Ecija, while the complainant, Celestial D. Reyes, is the
private complainant in Criminal Case No. 292-97 and the plaintiff in Civil Case
No. 4482, both of the MTC, Gapan. Complainant alleges that she went to see
respondent to follow-up on the criminal case but respondent, in a very rude
manner, denied her request to see the record, and treated her as if she was not
an interested party. Complainant alleges further that respondent and Gerardo S.
De Leon, public prosecutor in charge of Criminal Case No. 292-97, conspired to
make her lose her case.[1]
In a supplemental complaint,
complainant made the further claim that without notice to her, the hearings set
on May 20 and July 17, 1997 in the civil case were cancelled; that her counsel
filed a motion to declare the defendants in default but that the same was
arbitrarily denied; and that the criminal
case which she filed was not set for hearing until a month after the
arraignment.[2]
Respondent denies the allegation
against her. She recalls having dealt with complainant on June 19, 1997 when
the latter went to the court to request a copy of the warrant of arrest in
Criminal Case No. 292-97. She claims,
however, that because the judge had a standing order that warrants
of arrest should be released
only to the warrant officer, she told
complainant to wait for the warrant officer to come. Respondent added
that she only dealt with complainant very briefly as she referred her to one of
the court stenographers. Respondent
denies that she refused
complainant’s request to be
allowed to see the records of the case.[3]
Anent complainant’s claims
regarding the postponements of hearings, respondent states that contrary to
what complainant stated, there was no hearing scheduled on May 20, 1997 and,
therefore, there was nothing to reset.
On the contrary, it was complainant’s counsel who moved for the postponement
of the preliminary investigation of the criminal case from July 7, 1997 to June
16, 1997. Lastly, respondent denies knowing or having dealt with the public
prosecutor in Criminal Case 292-97.[4]
Complainant filed a
letter-reply. She contends that she is
not questioning the trial court’s policy regarding the release of warrants of
arrests. She claims that her complaint
pertains to respondent’s conduct in sarcastically telling her that she seemed
to know more than the court when she asked why another “preliminary
investigation” had to be conducted when one had already been held by the public
prosecutor. Complainant said she erred in alleging that a hearing was scheduled
on May 20, 1997 and explained that she meant a hearing conducted on May 22,
1997.[5]
The case was referred to Executive
Judge Arturo M. Bernardo of the Regional Trial Court, Gapan, Nueva Ecija, for
investigation, report, and recommendation. After the parties had filed position
papers, the case was submitted for resolution. On February 4, 1999, Judge
Bernardo submitted his report finding the allegations of misconduct to be
without any basis but recommending that respondent be censured for “discourtesy
and disrespect.”
In the resolution of August 16, 1999, the Court returned the case
to Judge Bernardo for further investigation, including, if necessary, the
holding of hearings. Consequently, the
Investigating Judge scheduled the case for hearing, but, out of several
hearings set, complainant attended only one.
On respondent’s motion, therefore, the case was considered submitted for
resolution.
On September 3, 1999, the
Investigating Judge submitted his second report in which he reiterates the
findings in his original report of February 4, 1999, the pertinent portions of
which read:
[T]he position paper of the complainant expounding her charges was not accompanied by supporting affidavits.
. . . .
There’s also no showing that complainant was deprived of access to the records of the case. What appears is complainant’s request for a copy of the warrant of arrest in connection with the criminal case for Falsification of Public Document, docketed as Criminal Case No. 292-97, which respondent Clerk of Court denied due to the standing directives of the Presiding Judge that warrant[s] of arrest should only be delivered or entrusted to [the] proper warrant officer.
Likewise, the records do not show that respondent cancelled scheduled hearings of the case either on the civil or criminal, as there were none set for . . . May 20, 1997, July 5, 1997 and November 20, 1997. While there was a resetting of the hearing on July 17, 1997 in the morning to . . . the afternoon o[f] the same date, it was through the instance of Atty. Diosdado [Padilla] . . . . And the circumstances of the resetting was aptly explained in the Order of September 26, 1997 of the Municipal Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija. Even the hearing on July 1[7], 1997 was [moved to another date]] through the instance of counsel [for complainant] who had the duty to notify the other parties.
What happened is simply the result of common misunderstanding. For want of knowledge on the existing procedure in our courts[,] complainant became too sensitive when she was not satisfied [with] the answer of the respondent on the need for preliminary examination to determine probable cause for the issuance of the warrant of arrest. Under our jurisprudence, warrant of arrest should only be issued upon a finding of . . . probable cause by the Judge. While it is true that an Information was filed in court for Falsification of Public document[,] still the Judge has to determine probable cause to justify the issuance of the warrant of arrest. But, one thing led to another, hence, the instant complaint. The complainant who was represented by counsel in these cases should have consulted him on the procedural aspect of these cases.
However, as pointed out by the complainant, Clerk of Courts are enjoined to demonstrate courtesy, civility and self-restraint in their actuations to the public even when confronted with rudeness and insulting behavior. Respondent may have over-reacted when she answered why complainant is more knowledgeable than the court. The complainant being a party-litigant, a complaining witness, will not denounce the actuations of this respondent Clerk of Court if it is not true.
The acts of respondent characterizing discourtesy and disrespect to a party-litigant will impair the dignity and honor of the courts, and which ultimately undermine people’s faith and trust in the judiciary.
It is recommended that respondent Clerk of Court be censured for
her actuations that are inimical to the interest of the judicial service.[6]
The Court finds the recommendation
of the Investigating Judge well taken.
As correctly found by the
Investigating Judge, complainant failed to substantiate her allegations that
respondent, without notice to her, changed the dates of hearing in Civil Case
No. 4482 and Criminal Case No.
292-97. Indeed, we do not see how she
could have done so when she has no authority at all to fix the dates of hearing
of cases. To the contrary, the records reveal that the preliminary examination
of the criminal case scheduled on July 7, 1997 and the pre-trial in the civil
case scheduled at 9:00 in the morning of July 17, 1997 were moved to June 16,
1997 and July 17, 1997, 2:00 p.m., respectively, at the instance of
complainant’s own counsel, Atty. Diosdado Padilla. If complainant was unaware of these changes, she only had her own
counsel to blame. As for the other
trial dates which she claims to have been changed without prior notice to her,
the records do not contain any order issued by the trial court on this matter.
Neither has the charge that
respondent and Public Prosecutor Gerardo S. De Leon had conspired to make her
lose her criminal case been proven. Complainant has not explained how it is
within the authority of a Clerk of Court to do so.
Nevertheless, the Court agrees
with the Investigating Judge’s recommendation to hold respondent guilty of
discourtesy by telling complainant
off that she seemed to be more knowledgeable than the
court because complainant asked why a
“preliminary investigation,” actually a
preliminary examination, was necessary. Although complainant presented no
evidence on this point other than her sworn statement, the Court is inclined to
give credence to her claim considering that as a party to two cases then
pending with the trial court, she had nothing to gain by falsely charging
respondent with discourtesy as such could not but affect her dealings with respondent.
Respondent submitted the joint
affidavit[7] of Helen J. Pineda and Elizabeth Cerin, Clerk II and
Stenographer, respectively, of MTC, Gapan, in which they claimed they were
present on the two occasions complainant saw respondent in June 1997 in connection
with Criminal Case No. 292-97. The two
claimed that contrary to the allegations of the complainant, respondent treated
complainant with courtesy and civility and that it was in fact complainant who
had raised her voice and acted arrogantly towards respondent.
The Court cannot give credence to
this claim not only because respondent made no mention of it either in her
comment or position paper and that it was submitted long after the parties had
filed their position papers but also because Pineda and Cerin are court
personnel under the supervision of respondent.
It is possible that they were merely prevailed upon, as an afterthought,
to execute the affidavit. It would have
been different had respondent presented as her witnesses disinterested parties
not connected with the MTC, for then their motivations would not be
suspect. Indeed, Pineda and Cerin’s
statement that it was complainant who showed discourtesy towards respondent is
simply unbelievable for she had no reason to be rude or arrogant.
As recipients of the public trust,
public officers are enjoined to observe courtesy, civility, and self-restraint
in their actuations to the public.[8] Respondent’s act in this case falls short of this
standard. Considering that respondent
appears to have no prior administrative record, the Court agrees that the
penalty of censure would be appropriate.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Erlinda M. Patiag, Clerk
of Court, Municipal Trial Court, Gapan, Nueva Ecija guilty of discourtesy and
is hereby CENSURED with warning that repetition of the same or similar acts
will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman),
Quisumbing, and De Leon ,Jr., JJ., concur.
Buena, J., on official leave.