ADVERTISEMENT
SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-17-3735. June 19, 2019.](Formerly OCA IPI No. 15-4379-P)
PHILIP F. PIKE, petitioner, vs.MARILOU C. MARTIN, ACTING CLERK OF COURT, BRANCH 268, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, PASIG CITY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated19 June 2019which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-17-3735 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 15-4379-P) — PHILIP F. PIKE versus MARILOU C. MARTIN, Acting Clerk of Court, Branch 268, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City
In a complaint 1 dated January 15, 2015, Philip F. Pike (Pike) charged respondent Marilou C. Martin (Martin), Acting Clerk of Court, Branch 268, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, with gross misconduct, dishonesty and obvious partiality, relative to SCA No. 3842, 2 entitled, "Ma. Victoria M. Baulo v. Philip Pike and all persons claiming rights under his name."3
In an Order 4 dated November 25, 2014, the RTC denied Pike's motion for reconsideration of its Order granting the writ of execution and his motion for the inhibition of Presiding Judge Maria Cheryl B. Laqui-Ceguera. Thereafter, Martin issued a Writ of Execution 5 dated December 5, 2014. HTcADC
In his complaint, Pike alleged that the said Order dated November 25, 2014 was served personally on plaintiff Ma. Victoria M. Baulo on December 3, 2014, while his copy was mailed at the Pasig City Post Office only on December 11, 2014. 6 Pike alleged that Martin issued the subject writ of execution even before he received his copy of the said Order, thus depriving him of his right to seek a remedy against the same. 7
Pike also alleged that the subject writ was not attached to the records of the case when he requested for certified copies of court orders and pleadings as attachments to his Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals. 8 He claimed that Martin intentionally concealed the subject writ to prevent him from assailing the same. 9 He alleged that he only knew about the subject writ on January 8, 2015 when Sheriff Arellano served the same along with the notice to vacate. 10
In her Comment 11 dated March 20, 2015, Martin alleged that it was her ministerial duty to issue the subject writ in compliance with the Order dated November 25, 2014. 12 Martin denied that she concealed the said writ, since after its issuance, she went on leave from December 5 to 19, 2014 to travel to the United States of America. 13
In his Reply 14 dated April 15, 2015, Pike assailed Martin's authority to issue the said writ on December 5, 2014 since she was on leave.
In a Report 15 dated June 22, 2017, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that Martin be found guilty of impropriety and reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with severely. 16 The OCA cited Re: Anonymous Complaint against Judge Edmundo T. Acuña, RTC, Caloocan City, Branch 123, 17 where the Court reprimanded respondent Judge Acuña for impropriety in conducting hearings and promulgating decisions on the day when his official leave of absence started. In the present case, the OCA stated that Martin should not have signed the subject writ during her leave. 18 She should have delegated the same to the designated Officer-in-Charge. 19
The OCA also stated that if Pike was able to prove that Martin's act was committed with malice, fraud, evident partiality, corruption or wrongful and deliberate intent to commit an illegal act, it would have recommended that Martin be found guilty of the more serious offense of grave abuse of authority and grave misconduct. Regarding Pike's allegation that Martin concealed the subject writ, the OCA found the same to be without merit. 20 CAIHTE
The Court adopts the OCA's findings and recommendation. The Code of Conduct for Court Personnel 21 provides that, in performing their duties and responsibilities, court personnel serve as sentinels of justice and any act of impropriety on their part immeasurably affects the honor and dignity of the Judiciary and the people's confidence in it. 22
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Marilou C. Martin, Acting Clerk of Court, Branch 268, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City GUILTY of impropriety and is hereby REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with severely.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-7.
2. Also referred to as "SCA Case No. 3842-PSG" in some parts of the rollo.
3. See rollo, pp. 2, 21.
4.Id. at 58-60.
5.Id. at 8-10.
6.Id. at 3.
7. See id.
8.Id.
9. See id. at 4.
10.Id. at 4, 5.
11.Id. at 64-70.
12.Id. at 67-68.
13.Id. at 68.
14.Id. at 78-81.
15.Id. at 91-94.
16.Id. at 94.
17. A.M. No. RTJ-04-1891, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 250, 258-259, citing Ignacio v. Valenzuela, 197 Phil. 12 (1982).
18.Rollo, p. 93.
19.Id.
20.Id. at 93-94.
21. A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC, promulgated on April 13, 2004.
22. CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COURT PERSONNEL, 4th Whereas Clause.