ARMANDO R. CANILLAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. CORAZON V. PELAYO, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, ROSALES, PANGASINAN, RESPONDENT.

On March 22, 2000, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received an Affidavit-Complaint^[1]
from Armando R. Canillas, an Associate Professor of Pangasinan State
University, charging Corazon V. Pelayo, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial
Court, Rosales, Pangasinan with Grave Abuse of Authority.

Complainant avers that on March 8, 2000 he received a subpoena
served by ordinary mail, commanding him to appear before the Municipal
Trial Court of Rosales, Pangasinan on March 24, 2000 at 10:00 o’clock in
the morning. However, the portions in the subpoena indicating
the name of the accused, the case number and the nature of the case were
merely marked “x x x.” It bore the embossed seal presumably of the
court and was duly signed by respondent Corazon Pelayo.

On March 14, 2000, complainant verified the subpoena from the court of origin. A court employee informed him that the subpoena
was sent merely to compel him to settle his obligation with a certain
Salome Jacob. Complainant asked for the I.S. docket number of the case
against him, but he was told that the complaint has been prepared and
will be filed if he does not settle his obligation. Complainant was not
able to confront the respondent since the latter was already out for
lunch although it was only about 11:00 in the morning then.

Subsequently, on April 13, 2000, complainant wrote a Letter^[2]
to the Court Administrator manifesting that he is no longer interested
in pursuing the instant administrative complaint and, thus, he is
withdrawing the same.

When asked to comment,^[3] respondent stated that the subpoena
was actually intended as an invitation to a mediation conference.
Respondent maintains that she was motivated by an honest desire to give
complainant the opportunity to settle his obligation with Ms. Jacob, who
is about to file seventeen (17) complaints for violation of B.P. 22
against complainant, and spare the latter the rigors of a court
litigation.

Respondent likewise averred that she has apologized to complainant for sending a subpoena
instead of an invitation letter. In fact, after her explanation,
complainant decided to withdraw the complaint against her. Respondent
assured this Court that she will not commit the same mistake again.

Upon evaluation, the OCA found the respondent Clerk of Court guilty
of Grave Abuse of Authority. The OCA opined that respondent’s act of
sending a subpoena instead of an invitation letter violated Rule 21, Section 1 of the Rules of Court which defines a subpoena
as “a process directed to a person requiring him to attend and to
testify at the hearing or trial of an action, or at any investigation
conducted by competent authority, or for the taking of his deposition.”
The subpoena sent by respondent to complainant was not for the
latter to attend or testify at the hearing of a case or for an
investigation since no case has yet been filed in court, but merely as
an invitation to a mediation conference. Correspondingly, the OCA
recommended that the respondent Clerk of Court be fined in the amount of
P1,000.00 with a stern warning that the commission of similar acts in
the future shall be dealt with more severely.

We agree with the recommendation of the OCA.

At the outset, it must be emphasized that the withdrawal of a
complaint for lack of interest of a complainant does not necessarily
warrant the dismissal of an administrative complaint.^[4]
Administrative actions cannot depend on the will or pleasure of a
complainant who may, for reasons of his own, condone what may be
detestable. Neither can the Court be bound by the unilateral act of a
complainant in a matter relating to its disciplinary power^[5] since complainants in administrative cases against court personnel are, in a real sense, only witnesses.

Respondent’s excuse that she was motivated solely by an honest
desire to give complainant the opportunity to settle his obligation to
Salome Jacob and to spare him from court litigation cannot justify her
infraction. Any mistake of this sort, once committed, by court
employees, more so by clerks of court, creates a stigma that cannot just
be expunged from the eyes of the people who look up to the courts as
sacred places where litigants are heard, rights and conflicts settled
and justice solemnly dispensed. Although there is no showing that she
benefited from such arrangement, her integrity was placed in serious
doubt when she irregularly prepared and caused the subpoena to
be sent to complainant. As an officer of the court, she should have
conducted herself in a manner that would not have cast any suspicion or
doubt on her integrity.^[6]
That clerks of court ought to live in the strictest standard of honesty,
integrity and uprightness in the conduct of their affairs has been
echoed in the recent case of Reyes-Domingo v. Morales,^[7] where this Court held that:

A Clerk of Court is essential and a ranking officer of our
judicial system who performs delicate administrative functions vital to
the prompt and proper administration of justice. A Clerk of Court’s
Office is the nucleus of activities both adjudicative and
administrative, performing, among others, the functions of keeping the
records and seal, issuing processes, entering judgments and orders and
giving, upon request, certified copies from the records.

Owing to the delicate position occupied by Clerks of Court in the
judicial system, they are required to be persons of competence, honesty
and probity since they are specifically imbued with the mandate of
safeguarding the integrity of the court and its proceedings, to earn and
preserve respect therefor, to maintain loyalty thereto and to the judge
as superior officer, to maintain the authenticity and correctness of
court records and to uphold the confidence of the public in the
administration of justice.

x x x. Those involved in the administration of justice must live
up to the strictest standards of honesty and integrity in the public
service, much more so Clerks of Court who play a key role in the
complement of the court and, thus, can not be permitted to slacken their
jobs under one pretext or another.

Time and again, we have emphasized that the conduct and behavior
of every one connected with an office charged with the dispensation of
justice, from the presiding judge to the sheriff and to the lowliest
clerk should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.^[8]
Every court personnel must be constantly reminded that any impression
of impropriety, misdeed or negligence in the performance of official
functions must be avoided.^[9] They should always be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court
finds respondent Corazon V. Pelayo, Clerk of Court of the Municipal
Trial Court of Rosales, Pangasinan, guilty of Grave Abuse of Authority
and imposes on her a FINE of One Thousand Pesos (1,000.00) with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Vitug, Kapunan, and Austria-Martinez, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 2-5.
^[2] Ibid., p. 8.
^[3] Ibid., pp. 10-11.
^[4] Lapeña v. Pamarang, 325 SCRA 440 (2000).
^[5] Enojas, Jr. v. Gacott, Jr., 322 SCRA 272 (2000).
^[6] Martinez v. Rimando, 328 SCRA 699 (2000).
^[7] 342 SCRA 6 (2000).
^[8] Merilo-Bedural v. Edroso, 342 SCRA 593 (2000).
^[9] Office of the Court Administrator v. Cabe, 334 SCRA 348 (2000).