Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > September 2008 Resolutions > [A.M. No. P-07-2393 : September 16, 2008] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. ATTY. EMELINE BULLECER-CABAHUG, CLERK OF COURT, RTC, BRANCH 56, MANDAUE CITY :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the Court En Banc dated September 16, 2008

A.M. No. P-07-2393 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Emeline Bullecer-Cabahug, Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 56, Mandaue City). - The instant administrative matter is pursuant to the Court's Resolution dated October 5, 2007 in A.M. No. RTJ-06-2030 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Augustine A. Vestil) and A.M. No. RTJ-07-2032 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Jesus dela Pe�a), where the Court directed Atty. Emeline Bullecer-Cabahug, Branch Clerk of Court of Regional Trial Court, Branch 56, Mandaue City, to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for issuing a Constancia dated February 6, 2004 relative to Civil Case No. MAN-3855 entitled May Ann T. Castro-Roa v. Rocky Rommel D. Roa.

In the aforementioned October 5, 2007 Resolution, the Court found Judge dela Pe�a guilty of gross ignorance of the law tantamount to grave abuse of authority for his failure to observe the requirements of prior notice and hearing when he rendered the decision in Civil Case No. MAN-3855. In the same Resolution, Judge Vestil was found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure for acting favorably on the Motion to Dismiss Petition of Castro-Roa despite lack of proper notice to the other party.

In the case of Atty. Cabahug, the Court observed that "her act in issuing a Constancia on February 6, 2004, submitting the Motion to Dismiss Petition for resolution was beyond her duty as Clerk of Court. Such function is judicial in nature x x x." Hence, the order to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for issuing a Constancia relative to Civil Case No. MAN-3855.

Thereafter, Atty. Cabahug submitted her explanation dated November 6, 2007. The Court En Banc then issued a Resolution dated December 4, 2007 referring to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Aty. Cabahug's Explanation relative to the above-mentioned case for comment and recommendation. In compliance therewith, the OCA submitted its report and recommendation dated 22 August 2008, the pertinent portions of which read:

Civil Case No. MAN-3855 refers to a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage initiated by May Ann T. Castro-Roa before the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City. The case, filed on June 5, 2000, was raffled to the sala of Judge Augustine A. Vestil (RTC, Mandaue City, Branch 56). However, as assisting judge of the said court, Judge Jesus dela Pe�a took cognizance of the case.

At the April 24, 2001 hearing of the case, Judge dela Pe�a declared respondent Rocky Rommel D. Roa as having waived his right to cross-examine petitioner Castro-Roa for failure of his counsel to appear at the said hearing and for non-appearance in several previous proceedings. On the same date, Judge dela Pe�a decided the case, annulling Castro-Roa's marriage to Rocky. Rocky and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).

In its October 22, 2003 Decision, the CA declared the Decision of Judge dela Pe�a null and void due to "very apparent fatal irregularities" in the conduct of the trial which deprived Rocky of due process of law. The CA ordered the revival of the case in the court of origin to give Rocky a chance to present evidence.

On December 11, 2003, Castro-Roa filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition (Motion) with RTC, Branch 56, stating that she no longer wished to continue with the trial as it would require on her part extra effort, time and money which would dwindle her meager resources. This time, it was Judge Vestil who acted on the Motion by issuing on January 26, 2004 an Order directing Rocky to file his comment or opposition thereto and setting the hearing thereof on February 6, 2004.

On February 6, 2004, Atty. Cabahug, as Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 56, issued a "Constancia" submitting the Motion for Resolution "considering that the Presiding Judge was in Manila on official business." In his Order dated March 10, 2004, Judge Vestil granted the Motion, noting that Rocky and his counsel were served a copy of the Motion yet they filed no comment or opposition thereto.

x x x

In her Explanation dated November 6, 2007, Atty. Cabahug claimed that on February 6, 2004, the date set for hearing of the Motion to Dismiss Petition, Judge Vestil was on official business in the Supreme Court. The Judge, however, instructed her through the telephone "to inform the parties that the Motion is submitted for resolution." When she inquired in what manner the party should be notified, the Judge allegedly directed her to issue a Constancia. Doubtful as to the propriety of issuing a Constancia, Atty. Cabahug asked Judge Vestil for the meaning of the issuance. The Judge allegedly replied that "it is just equivalent to a note."

On the basis of this "order," Atty. Cabahug proceeded to prepare the Constancia. She asserted that the issuance of the Constancia "was for records purposes only." The document was merely attached to the records of the case and no copies of the same were sent to the parties.

Atty. Cabahug maintains that she neither intended to exercise judicial power nor decided on her own to issue the Constancia. She issued it in compliance with Judge Vestil's "verbal instruction." She pointed out that the signature and the handwritten note of the judge instructing her to research on the Motion to Dismiss subject of the issuance can be found in the Constancia itself indicating that the same had been issued upon the authority of her immediate superior.

Nonetheless, she conceded that she "committed a mistake in the manner the Constancia was written" because it has the tenor of an "order" and not just a "note or a memo."

The explanation submitted by Atty. Cabahug is impressed with merit.

The act of issuing the Constancia falls beyond the scope of her administrative authority as Clerk of Court. However, Atty. Cabahug cannot be held administratively liable for such issuance because she did it upon "verbal instruction" from Judge Vestil, her immediate superior. There are indications that Judge Vestil consented to or authorized the issuance of the Constancia. For example, Judge Vestil affixed his signature on the face of the document itself and wrote a note instructing Atty. Cabahug to undertake research relative to the motion referred to in the Constancia. Also, in the Resolution that required the respondent to explain, the Court noted that Judge Vestil did not correct the "improvident issuance of the Clerk of Court" and instead granted the Motion to Dismiss Petition which was the subject of the Constancia in question.

Moreover, the claim of Atty. Cabahug that the Constancia was issued "for record purposes only" validly supports her assertion that when she issued the same, she did not intend to exercise any judicial function. Apparently, [when] the Constancia was issued, it was simply attached to the case records and was never released to the parties.

Without the valid justification, the act of Atty. Cabahug in issuing the Constancia could be considered usurpation of judicial function. The act may amount to grave misconduct and may warrant a penalty as harsh as dismissal from the service.

At any rate, Atty. Cabahug needs to be admonished that she could have avoided the situation in which she now finds herself in had she exercised due care in the performance of her duties, particularly in the preparation and issuance of orders, writs and other court processes. Had she been extra careful, she could have asked Judge Vestil not only for the meaning of "Constancia" but also as to the propriety of issuing the same, considering that as Clerk of Court she cannot exercise judicial functions. She, apparently, failed to meet this exacting standard. As a Clerk of Court, Atty. Cabahug holds a very delicate and sensitive position in the Judiciary. Much is demanded of and expected from her.

The [C]lerk of [C]ourt is an essential and ranking officer of the judicial system who performs delicate administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice. Owing to the delicate position the [C]lerk of [C]ourt occupies in the judicial system, it is required that he/she be a person of competence, honesty and probity. The holder of the [C]lerk of [C]ourt position is specifically imbued with the mandate of safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings, maintaining loyalty thereto and to the judge as his superior officer, preserving the authenticity and correctness of court records, and upholding the trust and confidence of the public in the administration of justice. [citation omitted.]

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, we respectfully submit for consideration of the Honorable Court the recommendation that Atty. Emeline Bullecer-Cabahug, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Mandaue City, Branch 56 be ADMONISHED to exercise due care in the performance of her duties and to be more circumspect in the preparation and issuance of orders, writs and other court processes with the  STERN WARNING that commission of similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.

We agree with the observation of the OCA that, while Atty. Cabahug issued the Constancia upon Judge Vestil's "verbal instruction" with Judge Vestil's apparent consent, these seeming acts of approval would not cure the irregularity of Atty. Cabahug's act. On the other hand, as may be gleaned from the observation of the OCA that the Constancia was simply appended to the case records and was not released to the parties, the Constancia had no effect on the parties in whatever way.

WHEREFORE, Atty. Emeline Bullecer-Cabahug is ADMONISHED to exercise due care in the performance of her duties and to be more circumspect in the preparation and issuance of orders, writs and other court processes with the STERN WARNING that commission of similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.