AM CA 98 8 P; (March, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. CA-98-8-P March 11, 1998
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Myrna Alvarez (CA personnel concerned)
FACTS
Petitioners Alfredo Mesias and Candido Silao appealed an adverse RTC decision to the Court of Appeals. The appeal was dismissed via a January 15, 1996 resolution for failure to pay docket fees. On January 25, 1996, Ms. Jaralyn Cesar, a staff member of petitioners’ counsel, Atty. Semproniano Ochoco, went to the Court of Appeals to file a motion for reconsideration and pay the P400.00 docket fee. Respondent Myrna Alvarez, a Utility Worker in the Docket Section, allegedly refused to accept the payment and motion, instructing Cesar to pay via postal money order payable to the Court of Appeals. Cesar purchased and mailed the money orders that same day. When she returned to file the motion, Alvarez again refused to accept it and directed her to change the pleading to a “Motion to Admit Payment of Docket Fee.” On January 26, 1996, Cesar filed this motion, but Alvarez rejected it, stating the court had not yet received the money orders and to wait fifteen days and for Alvarez’s call. Cesar attempted to file again on January 29, 1996, and was rejected for the same reason. The motion was finally admitted only on February 14, 1996, but was denied by the Court of Appeals for being filed beyond the reglementary period. Petitioners filed a special civil action for certiorari with the Supreme Court, imputing the delay to Alvarez’s misleading instructions. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for being filed late. The First Division then instructed the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to investigate Alvarez’s actuations. In her comment, Alvarez denied refusing to accept the motion and money order slip, claiming she advised payment by postal money order and to attach the payment to the motion. An OCA legal team interviewed Court of Appeals officials, who confirmed Alvarez was a Utility Worker not authorized as a “frontliner” to give advice, but due to lack of personnel, the Docket Section utilized anyone to advise litigants. The officials stated the proper procedure was to first file a motion for reconsideration with the Receiving Section, and only pay the docket fee if the motion was granted. They opined Alvarez’s advice, while likely well-meaning, was improper and she should have referred Cesar to the Receiving Section.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Myrna Alvarez and other Court of Appeals officials should be held administratively liable for their actions and practices related to the improper advice given to a litigant’s representative, which contributed to the late filing of a motion and the dismissal of an appeal.
RULING
Yes. The Court adopted the recommendations of the Court Administrator.
1. Respondent Myrna Alvarez is REPRIMANDED and WARNED not to meddle with business transacted in the office, especially matters outside her assigned duties and responsibilities; a repetition will be dealt with more severely. The Court found that while her acts may not have been motivated by bad faith or malice, she gave improper advice despite knowing she was not authorized to receive motions or give such counsel. Her conduct fell short of the heavy burden of responsibility required of all court personnel.
2. Mr. Buenaventura Miguel, Acting Chief of the Judicial Records Division, is ADMONISHED for allowing personnel, irrespective of their duties, to deal with and give advice to party-litigants. He was directed to immediately correct this practice. As department head, he failed to exercise proper control and supervision to avert impropriety.
3. Clerk of Court Tessie Gatmaitan and Assistant Clerk of Court Elisa Longalong are DIRECTED to REMIND the Chiefs of Offices/Divisions and their personnel, especially those dealing directly with the public, to be more prudent in discharging their duties to avoid prejudicing the public.
4. Atty. Semproniano S. Ochoco is ADVISED to ensure his staff charged with filing pleadings are knowledgeable and properly instructed on the matter. The Court also noted the apparent ineptitude of his staff member, Ms. Cesar, in the failed filing attempts.