A.M. No. P-04-1791; January 27, 2006
Raul H. Sesbreño, Complainant, vs. Lorna O. Igonia, Cashier I, Office of the Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court, San Pedro, Laguna, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Raul H. Sesbreño was the prevailing party in an ejectment case. After assisting in serving a writ of execution, the losing parties filed a barangay complaint against him for “threats.” Complainant ignored the barangay summons, arguing the matters were already resolved by a final court judgment. Consequently, the Punong Barangay filed a Petition for Indirect Contempt of Court in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) where respondent Lorna O. Igonia was the officer-in-charge of the Office of the Clerk of Court. Respondent docketed the petition as a criminal case based on its caption, “People of the Philippines v. Atty. Raul H. Sesbreño,” and did not collect any docket fees.
When the Branch Clerk of Court inquired about the classification, respondent, in a letter-reply, acknowledged the dilemma, noting the petition was for contempt under Rule 71 (a special civil action) but was captioned as a criminal complaint. She stated it was up to the court to issue an order for amendment. Complainant then filed an administrative complaint, charging respondent with dishonesty, grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, and violations of the Revised Penal Code, R.A. No. 3019, and R.A. No. 6713, primarily for failing to collect docket fees and for improperly docketing the case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent is administratively liable for her actions in docketing the indirect contempt petition as a criminal case and for not collecting the corresponding docket fees.

RULING

The Court found respondent liable for simple neglect of duty, not for the more serious charges. The legal logic centers on the nature of her duties and the absence of malicious intent. A petition for indirect contempt under Rule 71 is indeed a special civil action, not a criminal complaint, and requires payment of docket fees. Respondent erred in mechanically docketing it based solely on its caption without examining its substance, which constitutes a failure to exercise due diligence. Her subsequent letter-reply, however, demonstrated she later recognized the proper classification and referred the matter for judicial determination, negating allegations of dishonesty or gross ignorance.
The Court emphasized that clerks of court are not expected to possess the expertise of judges, but they must exercise reasonable care and competence. Respondent’s failure to initially ascertain the correct nature of the pleading and to assess the corresponding fees amounted to simple neglect. The more severe charges were dismissed for lack of evidence showing corrupt motive or deliberate intent to defraud. The penalty was a fine of P5,000.00, with a stern warning. This ruling balances accountability for clerical oversight with the principle that administrative penalties must be commensurate with the proven infraction and the employee’s demonstrated intent.