ATTY.
EDWARD ANTHONY A.M. No. P-12-3061
B.
RAMOS, [Formerly
OCA-IPI No. 08-3022-P]
Complainant,
Present:
VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson,
- versus - PERALTA,
BERSAMIN,*
ABAD, and
PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ.
REYNALDO
S. TEVES, Clerk of
Court
III, Municipal Trial Court Promulgated:
in
Cities, Branch 4,
Respondent. June 27, 2012
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
This
case is about the clerk of courts discretion in refusing to receive a pleading
or motion that he believes has not complied with the requirements of the rules.
The Facts and the Case
On August 15, 2008 Atty. Edward
Anthony B. Ramos filed a complaint for money in his clients behalf before the
Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of
Since
the MTCC already served summons on the defendant but did not yet act on his ex parte request for preliminary
attachment, Atty. Ramos went to Branch 4 on September 8, 2008 to personally
file an urgent ex parte motion to resolve
the pending incident. But respondent
Reynaldo S. Teves, the branch clerk of court, refused to receive the motion for
the reason that it did not bear proof of service on the defendant. Atty. Ramos
explained that ex parte motions did
not require such service. A heated
argument between Atty. Ramos and Teves ensued, prompting the presiding judge
who heard it to intervene and direct the clerk in charge of civil cases to
receive the ex parte motion.
On November 24, 2008 Atty. Ramos charged
Teves before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) with arrogance and
discourtesy in refusing to receive his motion despite his explanation and a
reading of Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court and Justice Oscar Herreras
commentary on the Rules of Court relative to ex parte motions.
In his comment, Teves claimed that he
was neither arrogant nor discourteous and that his argument with Atty. Ramos
had been cordial and professional. Citing
Rule 19 of the Rules of Court, Teves asserted that he acted correctly in
refusing to accept Atty. Ramos non pro forma motion for failure to furnish
the adverse party with a copy of the notice of hearing. Teves claimed that he
could not just accept pro forma pleadings because these would burden the court
with having to decide matters based on a technicality, resulting in delay and
clogging of the dockets. Teves added
that while the clerk of court has the ministerial duty to receive pleadings, he
is not precluded from requiring the complainant to furnish the adverse party
with a copy especially his litigious motion as prescribed under Rules 13 and
15.
The Court referred the case to Cebu
City MTCC Executive Judge Oscar D. Andrino for investigation, report and
recommendation.[1] In
his report, Judge Andrino found Teves arrogant, discourteous, and rude
in refusing to receive the motion and recommended the imposition of one month
and one day suspension on him with a warning of a stiffer penalty in case of
repetition of similar acts.
Issue Presented
The
issue in this case is whether or not the branch clerk of court may refuse to receive
a pleading that does not conform with the requirements of the Rules of Court.
Ruling of the Court
Clearly
Teves erred in refusing to receive Atty. Ramos motion on the ground that it
did not bear proof of service on the defendant.
Unless specifically provided by the rules, clerks of court have no
authority to pass upon the substantive or formal correctness of pleadings and
motions that parties file with the court.
Compliance with the rules is the responsibility of the parties and their
counsels. And whether these conform to
the rules concerning substance and form is an issue that only the judge of the
court has authority to determine.
The
duty of clerks of courts to receive pleadings, motions, and other court-bound
papers is purely ministerial. Although
they may on inspection advise the parties or their counsels of possible defects
in the documents they want to file, which may be regarded as part of public
service, they cannot upon insistence of the filing party refuse to receive the
same.
The charge against branch clerk of court Teves
is that he was arrogant and discourteous in refusing to receive Atty. Ramos
motion despite the latters explanation, as a lawyer, that a copy of the same
did not have to be served on the defendant.
Actually, neither Atty. Ramos nor Judge Andrino claims that Teves used
foul language. The latter just stubbornly
stood his ground.
Still,
Teves was discourteous. Canon IV,
Section 2 of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel provides that court
personnel shall carry out their responsibilities as public servants in as
courteous a manner as possible. Atty.
Ramos was counsel in a case before Teves branch. He was an officer of the court who expressed
a desire to have the presiding judge, to whom he addressed his motion, see and
consider the same. Teves arrogated onto
himself the power to decide with finality that the presiding judge was not to
be bothered with that motion. He denied
Atty. Ramos the courtesy of letting the presiding judge decide the issue between
him and the lawyer.
As
succinctly held in Macalua v. Tiu, Jr.,[2]
an employee of the judiciary is expected to accord respect for the person and
right of others at all times, and his every act and word should be
characterized by prudence, restraint, courtesy and dignity. These are absent in this case.
Civil Service Resolution 99-1936 classifies
discourtesy in the course of official duties as a light offense, the penalty
for which is reprimand for the first offense, suspension of 1-30 days for the
second offense, and dismissal for the third offense.
The record shows that Teves had previously been administratively
charged with grave abuse of authority and gross discourtesy in OCA-IPI
08-2981-P. Although the Court dismissed the
charge for lack of merit on November 18, 2009, it reminded him to be more
circumspect in dealing with litigants and their counsel.
In two consolidated administrative cases, one for grave
misconduct and immorality and the other for insubordination,[3]
the Court meted out on Teves the penalty of suspension for six months in its resolution
of October 5, 2011. The Court of course
decided these cases and warned Teves to change his ways more than a year after
the September 8, 2008 incident with Atty. Ramos. Consequently, it could not be said that he
ignored with respect to that incident the warnings given him in the
subsequently decided cases.
Still those cases show Teves propensity for
misbehavior.
ACCORDINGLY,
the Court IMPOSES on Reynaldo S.
Teves, Branch Clerk of Court of Municipal Trial Court in Cities,
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice