FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. MTJ-18-1910. February 7, 2018.]
CORAZON PRODIGALIDAD, petitioner,vs. RITA E. QUIZON, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF ROSARIO, CAVITE, AND GUILLERMA P. PUGAY, CLERK OF COURT, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 7, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"A.M. No. MTJ-18-1910 [formerly OCA IPI No. 08-1965-MTJ] (Corazon Prodigalidad v. Rita E. Quizon, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court of Rosario, Cavite, and Guillerma P. Pugay, Clerk of Court). — Before this Court is an Administrative Complaint 1 filed by Corazon Prodigalidad against respondent Judge Rita E. Quizon of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Rosario, Cavite, and Guillerma P. Pugay, Clerk of Court of the same branch, for gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law.
Prodigalidad initiated a Complaint against respondent judge for allegedly issuing false subpoenas and for berating and publicly humiliating her for failing to settle her indebtedness to Dulce Amin. On the other hand, Pugay was included in the Complaint for issuing a Subpoena to complainant even prior to the payment of the required docket fees for the criminal cases filed by Amin.
FACTS
In her Complaint, Prodigalidad narrated that she received four subpoenas requiring her to appear before the court for a conference. During the first hearing on 26 July 2006, both parties appeared before Judge Quizon, who allegedly pressured her to pay the loan from Amin. Complainant offered to pay by installment and was thereafter advised by respondent judge to deliver the payments in court, so that the latter could monitor compliance with the commitment.
On 11 August 2006, complainant delivered to the court the amount of P10,000, which was received and receipted by Pugay.
By virtue of another Subpoena, complainant appeared in court on 14 August 2006 with her cousin Rene Reyes, who claimed to be a friend of Judge Quizon. Amin, however, failed to appear. Thereupon, respondent judge urged complainant to sell the latter's property in Tagaytay in order to be able to pay her obligation.
On 13 September 2006, complainant informed Judge Quizon that the former's children had refused to sell their property in Tagaytay. Respondent judge purportedly threatened to advise Amin to pursue the case against complainant.
On 3 November 2006, during another supposed conference, Judge Quizon berated complainant and threatened to have her arrested, unless the latter paid her obligation to Amin.
During the hearing for another criminal case filed against complainant by a certain Rosita de Ocampo before the same court, Judge Quizon allegedly humiliated complainant in connection with the latter's indebtedness to Amin.
Complainant filed a verified complaint on 7 February 2008. 2 Upon the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), 3 the Court referred the complaint to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite City on 12 January 2009 for investigation, report, and recommendation. 4 The case was assigned to Judge Agapito S. Lu, RTC, Branch 88, Cavite City.
It appears that on 10 March 2009, complainant died and was substituted by her counsel, Atty. Dante S. David.
Atty. David and Ofelia V. Aranas, complainant's househelp, testified for complainant. They confirmed that complainant had received notices of hearing from the court for a conference in a case captioned "Dulce Amin versus Corazon Prodigalidad." The notices were signed by Pugay, but they did not bear the case number and designation of the offense charged. Admittedly, there were criminal cases filed against complainant for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22) but the notices were sent prior to the payment of docket fees. When complainant appeared before the court, she was berated, scolded and publicly humiliated by Judge Quizon for failure to settle her indebtedness to Amin. Further, a Receipt dated 11 August 2006 issued by Pugay for the amount of P10,000 was presented to prove that complainant had been coerced to settle her obligation to Amin.
In her testimony, Judge Quizon admitted that there was a case filed by Amin against complainant before her sala on 23 February 2006, but that no payment of docket fees was received. The judge instructed Pugay to receive the Complaint, but to have it entered in the undocketed record book. The former likewise divulged a conversation with a certain Rene Reyes, complainant's cousin, who had asked the judge to help the parties settle amicably, as complainant was already sick. A conference was then scheduled upon the initiative of Reyes. Judge Quizon maintained that she was merely helping the parties reach a possible amicable settlement in accordance with the judiciary's thrust to aid in the de-clogging of court dockets. She, however, denied the allegation that she had berated complainant.
Pugay gave essentially the same testimony as Judge Quizon. The former insisted that the Notices of Hearing had been sent to complainant because of the pending case filed before the court. On the allegation that she received money from complainant, Pugay confirmed the receipt of the amount of P10,000 for which the latter issued a receipt, as Amin did not want to accept complainant's initial offer of settlement.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INVESTIGATING JUDGE
It was only on 4 May 2016 that Judge Lu submitted his Report and Recommendation to the Court. He found that Judge Quizon had acted inappropriately in interceding for Amin by inviting complainant to discuss an amicable settlement, and that respondent judge had abused the compulsory process of the court when the latter caused the issuance of four subpoenas before the payment of docket fees. Judge Quizon was also found to be accountable for inaction on the complaints of Amin which had remained undocketed for an unlimited period, thereby grossly ignoring Supreme Court (SC) Circular No. 57-97. 5 CAIHTE
On the other hand, Pugay was found liable for failure to advise Amin in writing to pay the filing fees in accordance with SC Circular No. 57-97. Judge Lu, however, found no impropriety in Pugay's act of receiving money from complainant, finding that the payment had been properly receipted and held in trust for delivery to Amin.
The investigating judge recommended that Pugay be reprimanded for failure to advise Amin to pay the docket fees, and that Judge Quizon be severely reprimanded and ordered to pay a fine of P20,000.
ISSUE
Whether or not Judge Quizon and Pugay should be held administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct.
OUR RULING
This Court finds no sufficient basis to hold Judge Quizon and Pugay liable for gross ignorance of the law or gross misconduct. There is gross ignorance of the law when an error committed by the judge was gross or patent, deliberate or malicious, or when a judge ignores, contradicts or fails to apply settled law and jurisprudence because of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. 6 While misconduct is a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer; and the misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, such as willful intent to violate the law or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence. 7
The Complaint is centered on the impropriety of the issuance of the assailed notices requiring complainant to appear before the court and respondent judge's conduct during the questioned hearing. According to complainant, the determination of the liability of respondents is anchored on the status of the case before the trial court, considering that docket fees had not yet been paid when complainant was summoned for a conference.
The facts are undisputed. Amin filed Complaints against complainant for violation of B.P. 22 sometime in February 2006. The Complaints were registered in the record book for undocketed cases 8 for failure of Amin to pay the required docket fees at the time of filing. Filing fees were paid only on 8 February 2008 (and the receipt was dated 13 February 2008). 9
The requirement of payment of docket fees for B.P. 22 cases is clear from Section 1 (b) of Rule 111 of the Rules of Court. 10 In Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. Asuncion, 11 this Court has ruled that "[i]t is not simply the filing of the complaint or appropriate initiatory pleading, but the payment of the prescribed docket fee, that vests a trial court with jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of the action." 12
As a general rule, filing fees are not required for criminal cases. But in Hyatt Industrial Manufacturing Corporation v. Asia Dynamic Electrix Corporation, 13 this Court ruled that because of the inclusion of civil action in complaints for violation of B.P. 22, the rules require the payment of docket fees upon the filing of the complaint. The rationale for the rule was further explained:
The foregoing rule was adopted from Circular No. 57-97 of this Court. It specifically states that the criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. It also requires the complainant to pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved. Generally, no filing fees are required for criminal cases, but because of the inclusion of the civil action in complaints for violation of B.P. 22, the Rules require the payment of docket fees upon filing of the complaint. This rule was enacted to help declog court dockets which are filled with B.P. 22 cases as creditors actually use the courts as collectors. Because ordinarily no filing fee is charged in criminal cases for actual damages, the payee uses the intimidating effect of a criminal charge to collect his credit gratis and sometimes, upon being paid, the trial court is not even informed thereof. The inclusion of the civil action in the criminal case is expected to significantly lower the number of cases filed before the courts for collection based on dishonored checks. It is also expected to expedite the disposition of these cases. Instead of instituting two separate cases, one for criminal and another for civil, only a single suit shall be filed and tried. It should be stressed that the policy laid down by the Rules is to discourage the separate filing of the civil action x x x. 14 (Emphasis supplied)
We also recognize that where the filing of the initiatory pleading is not accompanied by payment of the docket fee, the court may allow payment of the fee within a reasonable time, but in no case beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. 15 From the Court's pronouncements in Sun Insurance, it can be argued that while payment of the prescribed docket fee is a jurisdictional requirement, the case is not automatically dismissed if the non-payment does not go beyond the applicable prescriptive or reglementary period. 16
Given the foregoing, we agree that the trial court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over the Complaints for violation of B.P. 22 filed by Amin against complainant when it issued the assailed notices in 2006. As we held in Magaspi v. Ramolete, 17 the correct docket fees must be paid before courts can act on a petition or complaint. We cannot discount a possibly honest intention of Judge Quizon to declog her court docket by acting on the complaints filed before her sala, but policy dictates that it is improper for her to act on the complaint without the payment of required docket fees. The application of Punio v. Go in the instant case is on point, where the Court ruled that "despite respondent judge's lapse in judgment, the same constitutes merely an error in judgment for which he could not be held administratively liable absent any showing of malice, fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith. However, we deem it necessary to remind respondent that as a member of the bench he is duty bound to keep abreast with the rules, the laws, and precedents, affecting his court duties and functions as well as jurisdiction, in order to avoid the issuance of erroneous orders and decisions." 18 Thus, the act of calling the parties for a conference, even with the aim of helping them reach a possible amicable settlement but without the payment of the required docket fees contrary to the rules, is merely an error in judgment and merits a reprimand.
On the other hand, We find no irregularity committed by Clerk of Court Pugay when she received money from complainant for and in behalf of Amin. First, aside from her admission that there were undocketed cases against her in the same branch, complainant voluntarily went to court and deposited the amount of P10,000 in compliance with the supposed agreement on 26 July 2006. Second, it is undisputed that Pugay properly issued a receipt for that amount. 19 And lastly, the money was returned by Pugay upon the filing of the instant Administrative Complaint.
As to the assertion that Judge Quizon berated and publicly humiliated complainant, there is no sufficient evidence to show that respondent judge used harsh or foul words against her. It is true that magistrates are expected to respond to litigants, witnesses, and lawyers with restraint and sobriety in the interest of maintaining proper judicial decorum. This Court, however also, recognizes that judges should be stern in the manner in which they conduct proceedings. 20
Judge Quizon and Clerk of Court Pugay must be reminded to always exercise caution in the issuances of court notices. The charge and case number, even a UDK No., must be clearly seen on the face of the notices, so that the parties would not speculate on the validity thereof.
As a last note, respondents are likewise reminded to promptly conform to SC Circular No. 57-97 and OCA Circular No. 70-97 21 in managing the docket of the court. Although we do not find respondents guilty of gross ignorance of the law and gross misconduct as we cannot imply any showing of malice, fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith, their failure to strictly conform to the rules raising doubt as to compliance with the orders of the Court must be meted with a penalty of reprimand. DETACa
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Rita E. Quizon and Clerk of Court Guillerma P. Pugay are hereby REPRIMANDED.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-6.
2.Id.
3.Id. at 159-174.
4.Id. at 175.
5. Subject: Rules and Guidelines in the Filing and Prosecution of Criminal Cases under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 dated 16 September 1997.
6.Office of the Court Administrator v. Flores, 758 Phil. 30 (2015).
7.Rojas, Jr. v. Mina, 688 Phil. 241 (2012) citing Re: Complaint of Mrs. Corazon S. Salvador against spouses Noel and Amelia Serafico, 629 Phil. 192, 210 (2010).
8.Rollo, p. 21.
9. Report and Recommendation of Judge Lu, p. 17.
10. Rules of Court, Rule III, Sec. 1 (b) provides:
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed.
Upon filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based on the amount of the check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed. Where the complaint or information also seeks to recover liquidated, moral, nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, the offended party shall pay the filing fees based on the amounts alleged therein. If the amounts are not so alleged but any of these damages are subsequently awarded by the court, the filing fees based on the amount awarded shall constitute a first lien on the judgment. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
11. 252 Phil. 280 (1989).
12.Id. at 291.
13. 503 Phil. 411 (2005).
14. Id. at 417-418.
15. Supra note 9, at 291.
16. Suson v. Court of Appeals, 343 Phil. 816, 827 (1997).
17. 200 Phil. 583 (1982) reiterating the doctrine in Lazaro v. Endencia, 57 Phil. 552 (1932), Lee v. Republic, 119 Phil. 325 (1964), Malimit v. Degamo, 120 Phil. 1297 (1964).
18. 357 Phil. 1 (1998).
19. Annex "B" of the Administrative Complaint, rollo, p. 9.
20. OCA IPI No. 15-4420-RTJ, Atty. Bienvenido D. Comia, et al. v. Judge Lily Ann M. Padaen, Branch 68, Regional Trial Court [RTC], Binangonan, Rizal, 12 July 2017.
21. Procedural Guidelines in the Collection of the Filing Fees subject of Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97 dated 16 September 1997 and other legal fees involved; and the Docketing of the Criminal Case/s on the Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, dated 21 October 1997.