ROBERTO C. PASCUAL, COMPLAINANT, VS. MARILYN M. MARTIN, CLERK OF COURT III, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 1, TARLAC CITY, RESPONDENT.

Pascual versus Martin

The Case

This is an administrative case. Roberto Pascual, who represented the plaintiffs in an unlawful detainer case before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Tarlac City, Branch 1, filed a sworn complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator charging Clerk of Court Marilyn Martin with gross abuse of authority and conduct prejudicial to the service. The charge arose from her refusal to issue a writ of execution that the presiding judge had ordered. The case matters because it draws the line between the judge's judicial power to order execution and the clerk of court's ministerial duty to issue the writ, and it tells us what happens when a clerk substitutes her own judgment for the judge's.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed with the Office of the Court Administrator, which evaluated it and recommended that the respondent be fined 5,000 pesos and warned not to intrude into the domain reserved for the presiding judge. The Court then required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings, and both manifested willingness. The case was resolved by the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, on the basis of the pleadings and the report of the Office of the Court Administrator.

Facts

Roberto Pascual represented the plaintiffs in an unlawful detainer case against Jocelyn Maun before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Tarlac City, Branch 1. On 30 November 2005, the court decided in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendant to vacate the premises, to pay 5,000 pesos monthly for the use of the premises until she vacated, and to pay 20,000 pesos in litigation expenses plus 10,000 pesos in attorney's fees. On 27 December 2005, the defendant filed a notice of appeal. On 4 January 2006, the plaintiffs filed a motion for immediate execution.

On 10 January 2006, the court ruled on both matters in a single order. It directed that the records be forwarded to the Regional Trial Court for further proceedings on the appeal, and it ordered that a writ of execution be issued immediately, it appearing that the defendant had not deposited the rentals as directed in the decision. The respondent, however, refused to issue the writ. Asked by letter for her reasons, she answered that the complainant had no legal personality to represent the plaintiff corporation absent a board resolution, that the court was undergoing its annual physical inventory of cases, that defendant's counsel had not been furnished a copy of the order, that the notice of appeal had been given due course, and that no supersedeas bond was required because the decision did not adjudge back rentals.

In her comment, the respondent admitted she believed the order of 10 January 2006 was patently erroneous, even void as to the directive to issue the writ, because it simultaneously granted execution and gave due course to the appeal. She discussed the matter with the presiding judge, who nonetheless directed that the entire records be forwarded to the Regional Trial Court despite the non-issuance of the writ. Later, the Regional Trial Court reversed the decision of the Municipal Trial Court for lack of jurisdiction and personality to sue, and the respondent invoked that reversal to justify her refusal. The complainant, for his part, manifested loss of interest, but the respondent denied any out-of-court settlement.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent clerk of court is administratively liable for failing to issue the writ of execution as ordered by the judge.
• Whether or not the respondent may justify her refusal by her belief that the order of execution was erroneous or void, or by the later reversal of the decision by the Regional Trial Court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 19 of Rule 70 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 19. Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay same. If judgment is rendered against the defendant, execution shall issue immediately upon motion, unless an appeal has been perfected and the defendant to stay execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by the Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as found by the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court to exist or, in the absence thereof, the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises in question, at the rate determined by the judgment.

This provision bears on the case because the defendant did not comply with its conditions, so execution was proper and the duty of the court to order it was ministerial and imperative.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent is administratively liable. A clerk of court holds an essentially ministerial office. The function of ordering the execution of a judgment devolves upon the judge, but the act of issuing the writ of execution may be performed by the clerk of court under the direction of the court or judge, who may make out and sign all writs and processes issuing from the court. The respondent was therefore duty bound to issue the writ as directed, despite her belief that it should not be issued.

On the second issue, the Court held that her justifications fail. In refusing, she made her own evaluation of the matter and of the validity of the order of execution itself, thereby taking upon herself the performance of a judicial function, which presupposes the use of mental processes in the determination of law or fact and at times involves discretion. The functions of the clerk of court do not call for such processes. She cannot make capital of the Regional Trial Court's reversal, because her ministerial duty to issue the writ as ordered remains whether the immediate execution is upheld or reversed on appeal. The Court found no malice or intent to cause damage, but held that no matter how noble her intentions, she acted beyond the scope of her administrative authority. She was found guilty of simple misconduct, which the Court described as any unlawful behavior by a public officer in relation to the duties of his office, willful in character, embracing acts which the office holder had no right to perform, acts performed improperly, and failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act. Because there was no evident bad faith, dishonesty, or hatred, and because this was her first offense, the Court imposed a fine instead of suspension.

Doctrine

A clerk of court is an essential and ranking officer of the judiciary whose office is essentially ministerial. The power to order the execution of a judgment is judicial and belongs to the judge, but the issuance of the writ of execution is ministerial and may be performed by the clerk of court under the direction of the court or judge. A clerk of court cannot overstep her powers by exercising judicial functions, and her ministerial duty to issue a writ as ordered remains whether the immediate execution is later upheld or reversed by the appellate court. Under Section 19 of Rule 70, a judgment against the defendant in an ejectment case is immediately executory upon motion, and the defendant must perfect the appeal, file a supersedeas bond, and deposit the rentals to stay execution; failure to comply with any condition is a ground for outright execution, the duty of the court being ministerial and imperative. Failure to act in the face of an affirmative duty to act is misconduct, and where there is no evident bad faith, dishonesty, or hatred, it is simple misconduct.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of simple misconduct and fined her 5,000 pesos, with a warning that a repetition of a similar offense shall warrant a more severe penalty.

Remember This

The line to memorize is this: ordering execution is judicial and belongs to the judge, but issuing the writ is ministerial and belongs to the clerk, who must obey the order even if she believes it is wrong. Examiners use this case to test the ministerial duties of clerks of court and the distinction between judicial and ministerial functions in execution.