Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=51621:am-p-08-2552-2008&amp;catid=1510&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 08:58:17+00:00

Document:
ROBERTO C. PASCUAL, Complainant, v. MARILYN M. MARTIN, Clerk of Court III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Tarlac City, Respondents.
Clerk of Court Marilyn M. Martin (respondent) of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Tarlac City, Branch I, is being charged by Roberto C. Pascual in a sworn complaint1 filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for gross abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to the service.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, defendant Jocelyn Maun or her agents, successors-in-interest, or any persons acting in her behalf, is hereby ordered to vacate the premises in question and to pay plaintiff the amount of P5,000.00 as monthly payment for use of the premises until she finally vacated [sic]. Defendant is further directed to pay litigation expenses in favor of plaintiff in the amount P20,000.00 plus attorney's fees of P10,000.00.
Considering the "Notice of Appeal," let the records of this case be forwarded to the Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City for further proceedings.
It appearing that defendant has not deposited the rental as enunciated in the Decision in this case, as prayed for, let a Writ of Execution be immediately issued in this case.
Respondent Martin allegedly refused without justification to issue the writ of execution. Complainant asked respondent through a letter4 dated 11 January 2006 for her reasons in not issuing the writ. In her response,5 respondent reasoned that complainant had no legal personality to represent the plaintiff considering that there was no board resolution appointing him as plaintiff corporation's legal representative. The writ of execution could also not be issued because the court was then undergoing its annual physical inventory of cases and defendant's counsel had not yet been furnished with a copy of the order granting the issuance of the writ. In addition, defendant had filed a notice of appeal which was given due course in the same order dated 10 January 2006. Respondent added that defendant was not required to file a supersedeas bond to stay the execution pending appeal since the decision sought to be executed did not adjudge payment of back rentals. Thus, respondent concluded that there were valid reasons on her part in not issuing the writ of execution.
Before this Court, complainant alleges that the reasons respondent offered for refusing to issue the writ of execution delved into the merits of the case, a matter which is beyond her functions, and that it is not for her to determine the correctness of the order granting the motion for execution, as her duty is purely ministerial.
After evaluation, the OCA recommended in its report11 dated 19 May 2006 that respondent be fined P5,000.00 and warned not to intrude into the domain reserved for the presiding judge. The OCA found that respondent refused to issue the writ primarily because she believed the 10 January 2006 Order was illegal and void. Sharing the complainant's position, the OCA observed that in refusing to issue the writ of execution respondent acted beyond her authority as the matter calls for the exercise of judicial discretion. As noted by the OCA, a Clerk of Court is the administrative assistant of the Presiding Judge and as such his duty is to assist the judge in all matters not involving the exercise of discretion or judgment of the judge. The function of ordering the execution of a judgment, being judicial, devolves upon the judge, whereas the act of issuing the writ of execution, being ministerial, can be performed by a functionary, viz, the clerk of court.12 In the case at bar, Judge Mangino had issued an order granting plaintiff's motion for execution and directing the issuance of a writ. Hence, according to the OCA, respondent had no choice but to issue the writ as directed.
Respondent filed a Manifestation14 expressing her willingness to submit the case for resolution. She also submitted a copy of the RTC decision15 dated 22 May 2006 on the unlawful detainer case appeal, where the RTC reversed and set aside the decision of the MTCC for lack of jurisdiction and personality to sue. Capitalizing on the RTC decision, respondent further argues in her manifestation that the issuance of the writ of execution would have been unjust and bereft of any legal and factual support since complainant, as the person requesting the execution, was not a party to the unlawful detainer case nor a duly authorized agent of any of the parties therein. It follows too that complainant does not have any personality or justification to institute the instant administrative complaint either. Issuing the writ in the face of evidence of its unjust and unfair repercussions would have caused more damage to the parties as well as the court where the error would have lain, respondent adds.
Is respondent administratively liable in failing to issue the writ of execution as ordered by the judge? The Court finds that she is.
c. Prepares and signs monthly reports of cases.
l. Performs other duties that may be assigned to him.
As gleaned from the above enumeration, the functions of the Clerk of Court are generally administrative and ministerial in nature.
The function of ordering the execution of a judgment devolves upon the judge but another suitable employee, such as the clerk of court, can perform the act of issuing the writ of execution. As the rule now stands, the clerk of court may, under the direction of the court or judge, make out and sign all writs and processes issuing from the court.20 Respondent was duty bound to issue the writ as directed despite her belief that the writ should not be issued.
A close look at the excuse proffered by respondent for refusing to issue the writ shows that she made her own evaluation of the matter as well as of the validity of the order of execution itself. In doing so, respondent took upon herself the performance of a judicial function, certainly outside her duties as the judge's administrative and adjudicative assistant in all matters not involving the discretion or judgment of the judge. Clerks of Court cannot be allowed to overstep their powers and responsibilities by exercising judicial functions. Such exercise of judicial functions presupposes the use of mental processes in the determination of law or fact and at times involves discretion as to how the power should be used.22 The functions of the Clerk of Court do not call for such processes or exercise of discretion. Respondent cannot make capital of the RTC's reversal of the MTCC decision to justify her refusal to issue the writ of execution. Her ministerial duty to issue the writ of execution as ordered by the MTCC judge remains whether the immediate execution is upheld or reversed by the appellate court.
In refusing to issue the writ of execution, it does not appear that respondent was motivated by malice or intent to cause damage. Respondent even manifested that she believed she was protecting the court and the parties from the consequences of executing a "flawed" order. However, no matter how noble her intentions, still she acted beyond the scope of her administrative authority.
However, in several cases,25 the Court took into consideration as a mitigating circumstance the fact that the offense of simple misconduct was the first offense of respondent and therefore, the penalty of a fine of P5,000.00 instead of the recommended penalty was imposed. We take note that respondent has not been previously charged with an administrative offense. Thus, we deem it proper to consider this a mitigating circumstance in her favor and accordingly reduce the imposable penalty and adopt the OCA's recommendation of imposition of a fine of P5,000.00.
WHEREFORE, respondent Marilyn M. Martin is found guilty of Simple Misconduct and hereby FINED in the amount of P5,000.00, with a WARNING that a repetition of a similar offense shall warrant a more severe penalty.
12 Id. at 22. Citing Mejia v. Justice Pamaran, et al., 160 SCRA 457 (1988) and Pablo Casaje v. Roman Gatbalite and Archimedes D. Almeda, A.M. No. P-99-1353, 9 May 2000.
15 Id. at 31-36. Penned by Judge Bitty G. Viliran of the RTC of Tarlac City, Br. 65.
18 MiÃ±oso v. Pamulag, A.M. No. P-05-2067, 31 August 2005, 468 SCRA 407, 413.
19 The 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, Chapter I, p. 4.
20 Mariano v. Garfin, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2024, 17 October 2006, 504 SCRA 605, 615.
21 Sps. Chua v. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil. 74, 83 (1998), citing Acibo v. Macadaeg, 11 SCRA 446.
22 MiÃ±oso v. Pamulag, A.M. No. O-05-2067, 31 August 2005, 468 SCRA 407, 414.
23 Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.), p. 999.
24 Civil Service Commission, Resolution No. 99-1936, Rule IV, Sec. 52-B-1.
25 Balajadia v. Gatchalian, A.M. No. P-02-1658, 21 October 2004, 441 SCRA 82; Re: Alleged Tampering of the Daily Time Records of Sherry B. Cervantes, Court Stenographer III, Branch 18, Regional Trial Court, Manila, A.M. No. 03-8-463-RTC, 20 May 2004, 428 SCRA 572; Atty. Reyes-Domingo v. Morales, 396 Phil. 150 (2000).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.