THIRD DIVISION
|
ATTY. ALFONSO L. DELA VICTORIA, Complainant, - versus - ATTY. MARIA FE ORIG- MALOLOY-ON, Clerk of
Court, Municipal Trial Court in
Cities, Office of the Clerk of
Court, Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-07-2343
(formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-2416-P) Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, and NACHURA, JJ. Promulgated: August
14, 2007 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
The Court will never shirk its responsibility to
impose discipline upon erring court employees and magistrates, nor hesitate to
shield them from unfounded suits that serve only to disrupt, rather than
promote, the orderly administration of justice.[1]
We demonstrate the force of this pronouncement in
the instant administrative case.
In a
sworn letter-complaint[2]
dated November 21, 2005, Atty. Alfonso L. Dela Victoria (Atty. Dela Victoria),
a former judge, charged Atty. Maria Fe O. Maloloy-on (Atty. Maloloy-on), Clerk
of Court of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Davao City, before the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) with gross ignorance of the law for her
refusal to accept the cash bond being tendered by his clients.
Atty. Dela Victoria
alleged that, on November 12, 2005, a Saturday, he went to the Office of the
City Prosecutor, Davao City, because his clients,
Butch and Excel Verano (Veranos)
were being detained by virtue of a warrantless arrest
and after an inquest; that he learned
that the criminal information against the Veranos,
which recommended a bail of P2,000.00 each, had not yet been filed with
the proper court as it still lacked the signature of the City Prosecutor; that
he went to see the MTCC Executive Judge who suggested that a motion to set bail
pursuant to Rule 114, Section 17(c)[3]
should be filed; that he then immediately called his secretary, dictated the
contents of the motion, and instructed her to immediately bring the motion to
court so that the Executive Judge could act on it; that before he left the
MTCC, he passed by the Office of the MTCC Clerk of Court offering to post a
cash bond of P4,000.00; that
Atty. Maloloy-on was out of the office, and so, he
simply instructed his daughter-in-law, a relative of the Veranos,
to wait for Atty. Maloloy-on and pay the P4,000.00
cash bond; but that later that day, his daughter-in-law reported that Atty. Maloloy-on did not accept the cash bond because no
information had yet been filed. He then
added that his clients could not avail of the remedy under Rule 114, Section
17(c) because, on Saturdays, the offices of the City Prosecutor and the MTCC
Clerk of Court are open only until
Atty.
Dela Victoria further alleged that on Thursday,
November 17, 2005, he went to see Atty. Maloloy-on to
inquire why she refused to accept the cash bond, but that instead of giving a
proper explanation, Atty. Maloloy-on
"lectured" him, claiming that she could not accept the bond because
there was no information to be used as basis, and that the City Prosecutor
might quash the information prepared by the inquest Prosecutor; that even as he
tried to explain that he had "already made an arrangement with the
Executive Judge," Atty. Maloloy-on still
insisted and tried to justify her refusal to accept the offered cash bond.
This,
according to Atty. Dela
In her Comment,[4]
Atty. Maloloy-on clarified that the Office of the
Clerk of Court holds office from P2,000.00
scribbled on it; that after learning that the case was still with the City
Prosecutor's Office, she personally went to said office to verify the status of
the criminal information; that she was told that it was probably with the City
Prosecutor who had already left because it was already noontime; that she went
to the Office of the MTCC Executive Judge, but the latter was no longer in the
office; that she inquired from Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Zenia
Villariza (Atty. Villariza)
if Atty. Dela Victoria filed a motion to fix bail,
but was informed that there was none. It
was then that she returned to the Veranos and told
them that she could not accept the cash bond, and instead, to come back Monday,
assuring them that she would give priority to the case.
Atty. Maloloy-on further averred that in the morning of November
14, 2005, an information for Resistance and Disobedience to an Agent of a
Person in Authority was filed with their court; that since the rules provide
for summary procedure for the offense, she told the Veranos
to go to the Executive Judge for interview; that after the interview, the judge
issued an order[5]
for the Veranos' release, without them posting any
bail bond; and that the Veranos were even thankful
for her assistance.
Atty. Maloloy-on presented a different version of the incident of
November 17, 2005: that Atty. Dela Victoria barged
into her office, in a demanding and high-handed manner, inquired why she
refused to accept the cash bond; that she told him she was present then and
tried to explain her side, but Atty. Dela Victoria
kept cutting her short and lectured her on Rule 114, Section 17(c); that when
she insisted on explaining, Atty. Dela Victoria
arrogantly told her, "You should listen to me. I am a former judge and I know the law better
than you do;" that she explained that there was no refusal to accept
the bond but merely a failure to post bond because of the absence of an order
from the Executive Judge granting bail; that Atty. Dela
Victoria stood up, shouted at her, and as he made for the door, he turned
around and shouted, "What kind of a Clerk of Court are you? You are ignorant of the law. Bullshit!"
In a
letter-reply[6]
dated June 17, 2006, Atty. Dela Victoria reiterated that he was able to make
arrangements with the Executive Judge regarding his motion to pay cash bond,
but Atty. Maloloy-on refused to accept the cash bond purportedly on the ground
that she is the only one who can determine the amount of the bond to be
deposited before she accepts the same.
He said that because of the refusal of Atty. Maloloy-on, the motion to
tender the cash bond could not be filed before the Executive Judge for
appropriate action.
Atty. Maloloy-on, in her Rejoinder,[7]
denied any knowledge of the supposed agreement between Atty. Dela Victoria and
the MTCC Executive Judge, as she had not received any advice or instruction,
verbal or written, about it. She stated
that what was given her on November 12, 2005 was merely a piece of paper on
which was scribbled the amount of P2,000.00, and which turned out to be in
the handwriting of Atty. Dela Victoria.
She also denied the charge that she arrogated unto herself the power of
determining the amount of bond to be posted in criminal cases. To support this, she submitted a
certification[8] to
this effect dated
The OCA, in
its Report[9]
dated July 11, 2006, recommended that the subject administrative complaint
against Atty. Maloloy-on be dismissed for lack of merit, finding that she was
justified in not accepting the cash bond being offered for the temporary
release of the Veranos because the guidelines for the
application of Rule 114, Sec. 17(c) had not been complied with. The OCA noted that Atty. Dela
In our Resolution[10]
of August 16, 2006, we (1) noted the sworn letter-complaint of Atty. Dela
Victoria, the comment of Atty. Maloloy-on thereto, and the report of the OCA;
(2) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit; and (3) directed Atty. Dela
Victoria to explain within ten (10) days from notice why he should not be
disciplined as an erring member of the bar for filing his baseless harassment
complaint. This directive to Atty. Dela
Atty. Dela
In a letter[14]
dated January 24, 2007, Atty. Maloloy-on replied that the additional
allegations of Atty. Dela Victoria deserve no explanation because they are
irrelevant to the issue, false, misleading, and merely intended to cast a bad
image on her person not in accord with legal ethics.
In our Resolution[15]
dated
The OCA, in
a Memorandum[16]
dated
For filing a frivolous complaint, the
OCA recommended that Atty. Dela Victoria be found guilty of Contempt of Court,
meted a fine of P2,000.00, and sternly warned that a repetition of the
same offense in the future shall be more severely dealt with. Accordingly, the OCA recommended the denial
of his request for an investigation in view of the dismissal of his complaint.
We agree with the OCA.
Considering
that he was a former judge and had been engaged in the practice of law for
thirty (30) years, Atty. Dela
Lawyers are
required to act with the highest standard of truthfulness, fair play and
nobility in the conduct of their litigation and their relations with their
clients, the opposing parties, the other counsel and the courts.[17] They are duty bound to avoid improprieties,
which give the appearance of influencing the court.[18] Atty. Dela
Further, as
correctly pointed out by Atty. Maloloy-on and affirmed by the OCA, if Atty.
Dela Victoria insists that he filed his motion to fix the amount of bail with
the MTCC Executive Judge and the same was granted he should have attached copies
of the motion and the Court Order to his complaint. He did not.
Furthermore, there is nothing on record that refutes the statement of
Atty. Maloloy-on that she inquired from Atty. Villariza, Branch Clerk of Court of the MTCC Executive
Judge, and was informed that no petition to fix bail had been filed.
In administrative proceedings, the
complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations
in his complaint. Mere allegation is not
evidence and is not equivalent to proof.[19] Atty. Dela
Culled from
his very own complaint, it was the failure of Atty. Maloloy-on to apologize to Atty.
Dela Victoria that drove him to institute this
administrative case, especially after being “lectured” on why she could not
accept his tendered cash bond.
Obviously, he considered this an affront, given that he is a former
judge and has been engaged in the practice of law for three (3) decades. Thus, he filed his complaint for alleged
gross ignorance of the law, even without competent evidence to support it.
We cannot
overemphasize that a lawyer is part of the machinery in the administration of
justice. Like the court itself, he is an
instrument to advance its ends – the speedy, efficient, impartial, correct, and
inexpensive adjudication of cases and the prompt satisfaction of final
judgments. He should not only help
attain these objectives but should likewise avoid unethical or improper
practices that impede, obstruct, or prevent their realization, charged as he is
with the primary task of assisting in the speedy and efficient administration
of justice by Canon 12[23]
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.[24] Although
no person should be penalized for the exercise of the right to litigate, this
right must be exercised in good faith. A
lawyer who files an unfounded complaint must be sanctioned because as an officer
of the court, he does not discharge his duty by filing frivolous petitions that
only add to the workload of the judiciary.[25] Such filing of baseless complaints is indeed
contemptuous of the courts.[26]
Ordinarily,
lawyers who file unfounded complaints are disciplined by imposing upon them a
fine in an amount commensurate to the gravity of the offense to be determined
by this Court as the disciplining authority.[27] On various occasions, this Court has imposed
a fine ranging from P2,000.00 to P5,000.00
for cases similar to the one at bench. In
this case, the OCA recommends a fine of P2,000.00. We agree.
As to Atty. Dela
WHEREFORE, for filing his unfounded
complaint against Atty. Maria Fe O. Maloloy-on, Atty. Alfonso L. Dela Victoria
is found guilty of Contempt of Court and is meted a FINE of P2,000.00, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense in
the future shall be dealt with more severely.
For having become moot because of the dismissal of his administrative
complaint, the request of Atty. Dela
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
[1] Duduaco
v. Laquindanum, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1601,
[2] Rollo, pp. 1-6.
[3] SEC. 17. x x x (c) Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail with any court in the province, city, or municipality where he is held.
[4] Rollo, pp. 27-32.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17] Ramos v. Pallugna, A.C.
No. 5908,
[18]
Rau Sheng
Mao v. Velasco,
459 Phil. 440, 445 (2003).
[19] Nedia
v. Laviña, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1957,
[20] Rollo, pp. 73-98.
[21]
[22] Rollo, p. 68.
[23] CANON 12 – A LAWYER SHALL
EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND
EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
[24] Arnado
v. Suarin, A.M. No. P-05-2059,
[25]
[26] Rule 71, Section 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing. – x x x
(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official transactions.
[27] In Duduaco v. Laquindanum,
supra note 1, at 439, the lawyer was fined P10,000.00, while in Arnado
v. Suarin, supra note 24, at 410, the fine imposed was P5,000.00.