ATTY. ALFONSO L. DELA VICTORIA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. MARIA FE ORIG- MALOLOY-ON, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, DAVAO CITY, RESP…

Dela Victoria versus Maloloy-on

The Case

This is an administrative case filed by Atty. Alfonso L. Dela Victoria, a former judge and practicing lawyer, against Atty. Maria Fe O. Maloloy-on, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Davao City. The complaint charges her with gross ignorance of the law for refusing to accept a cash bond tendered for the temporary release of his clients, who had been arrested without warrant and were still undergoing inquest. The case matters for two reasons: it defines the proper procedure for bail of a person in custody who is not yet charged in court, and it shows that the Supreme Court will not hesitate to discipline a lawyer who files a baseless complaint against a court employee.

Procedural History

The complaint began as a sworn letter-complaint dated November 21, 2005, addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator. The Office of the Court Administrator evaluated the complaint and, in its report dated July 11, 2006, recommended that it be dismissed for lack of merit, and further recommended that Atty. Dela Victoria be ordered to explain why he should not be disciplined for filing a baseless harassment complaint. In its resolution of August 16, 2006, the Supreme Court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit and directed Atty. Dela Victoria to explain why he should not be disciplined as an erring member of the bar. That directive was reiterated in a later resolution. Atty. Dela Victoria filed an undated letter-explanation and an undated compliance, and the Court referred the matter back to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation. In a memorandum dated April 11, 2007, the Office of the Court Administrator found his explanation unacceptable and recommended that he be found guilty of contempt of court, fined 2,000 pesos, and sternly warned. The case was thus resolved by the Supreme Court itself, in the exercise of its administrative supervision over court personnel and its disciplinary authority over lawyers.

Facts

On November 12, 2005, a Saturday, Atty. Dela Victoria went to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Davao City because his clients, Butch and Excel Verano, were detained after a warrantless arrest and inquest. The criminal information against them, which recommended bail of 2,000 pesos each, had not yet been filed in court because it still lacked the signature of the City Prosecutor. The Executive Judge suggested that a motion to set bail under Rule 114, Section 17(c) be filed. Atty. Dela Victoria dictated the motion by telephone to his secretary, then passed by the Office of the Clerk of Court and offered to post a cash bond of 4,000 pesos. Atty. Maloloy-on was out of the office, so he instructed his daughter-in-law, a relative of the Veranos, to wait for the clerk and pay the bond. Later that day, the daughter-in-law reported that Atty. Maloloy-on refused to accept the cash bond because no information had yet been filed.

Atty. Maloloy-on gave a different account. She said she was present that Saturday and had stepped out only briefly to buy lunch. When she returned, the Veranos handed her a piece of paper with the amount of 2,000 pesos scribbled on it. She personally went to the City Prosecutor's Office to verify the status of the information, then to the Office of the Executive Judge, who was no longer there, and inquired from the Branch Clerk of Court whether a motion to fix bail had been filed. Told that there was none, she returned to the Veranos and told them to come back on Monday. On the following Monday, an information for Resistance and Disobedience to an Agent of a Person in Authority was filed, and after the Executive Judge interviewed the Veranos, the judge issued an order for their release without any bail bond.

On November 17, 2005, Atty. Dela Victoria went to see Atty. Maloloy-on to ask why she refused the cash bond. He claims she lectured him instead of explaining. She claims he barged in, cut her short, told her, "You should listen to me. I am a former judge and I know the law better than you do," and as he left shouted, "What kind of a Clerk of Court are you? You are ignorant of the law. Bullshit!" He admits that what drove him to file the complaint was her failure to apologize after lecturing him.

Issues

• Whether or not Atty. Maloloy-on is guilty of gross ignorance of the law for refusing to accept the cash bond tendered by Atty. Dela Victoria's clients.
• Whether or not Atty. Dela Victoria should be disciplined for filing an unfounded and baseless complaint against a court employee.

Applicable Provisions

Section 17, paragraph (c) of Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides:

Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail with any court in the province, city, or municipality where he is held.

This is the provision Atty. Dela Victoria invoked, and the Court measured both parties' conduct against its requirements.

Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice.

This canon supplies the standard against which the Court judged the filing of the complaint.

Section 3, paragraph (a) of Rule 71 of the Rules of Court provides:

Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his official transactions.

This is the ground of indirect contempt on which the Court anchored its disciplinary action against the lawyer.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that Atty. Maloloy-on was justified in not accepting the cash bond. Atty. Dela Victoria, as a former judge and a lawyer of thirty years, was expected to be conversant with the scope and application of Rule 114, Section 17(c), and should have known that he could not insist on acceptance of the cash bond without the necessary order from the court granting his motion. His assertion that he had already made arrangements with the Executive Judge, when there was no proper court order, amounted to an attempt to mislead the clerk into processing an unauthorized temporary release. The Court also stressed that in administrative proceedings the complainant bears the burden of proving his allegations by substantial evidence, and that mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. He failed to attach the motion and the order he claimed to have obtained, and nothing refuted the clerk's statement that the Branch Clerk of Court confirmed no petition to fix bail had been filed. She, in contrast, supported her defense with the entire court records, including certifications from the Branch Clerk of Court and the Executive Judge.

On the second issue, the Court found that the complaint was driven by pique, since it was the clerk's failure to apologize that moved him to file. It held that lawyers must act with the highest standard of truthfulness, fair play, and nobility, and must avoid improprieties that give the appearance of influencing the court. A lawyer who files an unfounded complaint must be sanctioned, because as an officer of the court he does not discharge his duty by filing frivolous petitions that only add to the workload of the judiciary, and such filing is contemptuous of the courts. The Court noted that fines ranging from 2,000 to 5,000 pesos had been imposed in similar cases, and it accepted the recommended fine of 2,000 pesos. His request for further investigation was denied as moot.

Doctrine

A person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail under Rule 114, Section 17(c), but the cash bond may be accepted only upon a proper order of the court granting the application. A clerk of court who declines to accept a bond without such an order commits no ignorance of the law. In administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proving the allegations by substantial evidence, and mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof. A lawyer who files an unfounded complaint against a court employee violates Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and is guilty of indirect contempt under Rule 71, Section 3, punishable by a fine.

Disposition

The complaint against Atty. Maloloy-on was dismissed for lack of merit, while Atty. Dela Victoria was found guilty of contempt of court, fined 2,000 pesos, sternly warned against repetition, and his request for investigation was denied.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a cash bond for a person not yet charged in court may be accepted only upon a court order granting the application, and a lawyer who files a baseless complaint against a court employee is himself guilty of contempt. Examiners use this case on Rule 114, Section 17(c) bail, on the complainant's burden of substantial evidence in administrative cases, and on the ethical duty of lawyers under Canon 12 not to clog the courts with frivolous complaints.