BONIFACIO OBRERO, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MA. VICTORIA A. ACIDERA, CLERK OF COURT, BRANCH 13, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LAOAG CITY RESPONDENT.

Obrero versus Acidera

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by Bonifacio Obrero against Atty. Ma. Victoria A. Acidera, the Clerk of Court of Branch 13 of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City. Obrero charged her with gross ignorance of the rules, gross incompetence, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and failure to measure up to the ethical standards in government prescribed under Republic Act Number 6713. The complaint arose from her acceptance of two motions that did not comply with the notice requirement of the Rules of Court. The case matters because it fixes the standard of diligence owed by a clerk of court at the receiving window of the judiciary, and it reminds every law student that a defective motion is not merely weak, it is a useless piece of paper.

Procedural History

The case began as an administrative complaint filed with the Office of the Court Administrator on March 19, 2007. The respondent filed her answer on June 5, 2007, explaining that her duty to accept filings is ministerial and that she cannot deny a motion without supplanting the power of the judge. The Office of the Court Administrator evaluated the records, found her administratively liable for ignorance of the law, and recommended a fine of 10,000 pesos. The matter was then elevated to the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court resolved it in its decision of March 28, 2008.

Facts

Obrero was a litigant in three civil cases pending before the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City. In the course of those cases, he observed that the clerk of court was accepting motions that did not strictly conform to the Rules of Court, to his damage and prejudice. He pointed to two instances.

First, on February 21, 2007, the respondent allowed the filing of a motion bearing a notation addressed to the Clerk of Court, asking that the motion be submitted to the Court for resolution upon receipt of a comment from all the parties concerned. Second, in March 2007, she allowed the filing of a paper styled as a manifestation and motion, with a note addressed to her, asking that it be submitted for the consideration of the court after due notice and hearing on March 8, 2007, immediately upon receipt.

In her defense, the respondent argued that it is her ministerial duty to accept filings whose notices are addressed to the clerk rather than to the parties. She insisted that she and her staff are not authorized to declare a motion a mere scrap of paper, because doing so would supplant the judge's power to act on it and might pre-empt the action of the opposing parties.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the rules, gross incompetence, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and failure to measure up to the ethical standards prescribed under Republic Act Number 6713.
• Whether or not a clerk of court may accept for filing a motion whose notice of hearing is addressed to the clerk of court instead of to all parties concerned.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 5. Notice of Hearing. - The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.

This is the provision the respondent violated, because the motions she accepted were directed to the clerk and not to the parties, and one of them did not even specify a hearing date.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found the respondent guilty of ignorance of the law. The records and her own admission confirmed that she accepted motions that violated Section 5 of Rule 15. The Court held that any motion which does not comply with this procedural requisite is a mere scrap of paper, should not be accepted for filing, and, if filed, is not entitled to judicial cognizance. It produces no effect on the reglementary period for filing the required pleading. A motion directed to the clerk of court, and merely stating that it is to be submitted for the resolution of the court upon receipt, is fatally defective, and any subsequent action of the court will not cure the flaw.

On the second issue, the Court rejected the respondent's justification. While the duty of a clerk of court is generally administrative or ministerial and does not involve the determination of law or fact, she still assumes the responsibility to observe ordinary prudence in the performance of her duties. That diligence calls for her to verify whether the pleadings submitted to her comply with the minimum procedural requirements. Such a determination is not an exercise of discretion or judgment but an administrative act in aid of the speedy disposition of cases. The Court stressed that the clerk's compliance with the Rules of Court is not merely directory but mandatory, and that knowledge as to the form of pleadings and motions is a skill required of a clerk of court of a regional trial court. It closed with the maxim that ignorance of the law excuses no one, and that an officer of the court who displays such ignorance must be called to account.

Doctrine

A motion whose notice of hearing is not addressed to all parties concerned violates Section 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. It is a mere scrap of paper, it should not be accepted for filing, and if filed it is not entitled to judicial cognizance and produces no effect on the reglementary period. A clerk of court who accepts such a fatally defective motion and submits it to the court is equally guilty of violating a basic procedural requirement. The clerk's duty to verify compliance with the minimum procedural requirements is not an exercise of judicial discretion but an administrative act in aid of the speedy disposition of cases. Ignorance of the law excuses no one, and this applies with greater force to an officer of the court who is presumed to know the law and the Rules.

Disposition

The Court found Atty. Ma. Victoria A. Acidera guilty of ignorance of the law, fined her 10,000 pesos, and warned that a similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a motion with a defective notice is a mere scrap of paper that should not be accepted for filing, and that the clerk who accepts it is equally liable. Examiners use this case to test the ministerial duties of clerks of court and the mandatory nature of the notice of hearing under Section 5 of Rule 15.