ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. P-00-1420. July 23, 2003]

BERNADEZ vs. MONTEJAR

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 23 2003.

A.M. No. P-00-1420(Rosemary P. Bernadez vs. Ricky V. Montejar, Process Server, RTC, Branch 64, Guihulngan, Negros Oriental.)

For Resolution is respondent's Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration which prays that the sanctions imposed upon him be reduced to a lighter penalty.

In his motion for reconsideration, respondent avers that he "does not question the propriety of the judgment handed down" by the Court. To mitigate his liability he, however, argues that "He never acted with malice nor bad faith. For that matter, he honestly, albeit erroneously, believed that the franking privilege applies to 'official communications and papers directly connected with the conduct of judicial proceedings,' vis-�-vis that of its personnel who for that matter answering complaints in relation to the performance of official court functions. Considering further it was never his intention to defy any law but has only misconstrued it in view of his deficiency in the proper interpretation of the statute..."

Respondents' claim of good faith, even if indeed true, will not save him from his predicament. As has been pointed out by the Court in its Resolution dated March 7, 2002, the franking privilege provided for by P.D. No. 26 extends only to judges and refers to official communications and papers directly connected with the conduct of judicial proceedings. The provisions of said statute could not be any clearer, thus, his admitted deficiency in his grasp of the provisions of the franking privilege statute simply rings hollow considering his position in the hierarchy of the court's staff.

As has been said often enough, ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. This command applies all the more to herein respondent who is a judicial employee aspiring for an even higher position in the judiciary.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. This denial is FINAL.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE