A.M. No. P-12-3061, June 27, 2012
Atty. Edward Anthony B. Ramos vs. Reynaldo S. Teves, Clerk of Court III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 4, Cebu City

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Edward Anthony B. Ramos, counsel in a civil case, sought to personally file an urgent ex parte motion to resolve a pending application for a writ of preliminary attachment before the MTCC, Branch 4, Cebu City. Respondent Reynaldo S. Teves, the Branch Clerk of Court, refused to receive the motion on the ground that it lacked proof of service on the adverse party. Atty. Ramos explained that an ex parte motion, by its nature, does not require such service, citing Section 1, Rule 57 of the Rules of Court and authoritative commentaries. A heated argument ensued, requiring the presiding judge’s intervention to direct another clerk to receive the pleading.
In his administrative complaint, Atty. Ramos charged Teves with arrogance and discourtesy. In his defense, Teves asserted he acted correctly under Rules 13 and 15, claiming the motion was “non pro forma” and required a notice of hearing. He argued that accepting non-compliant pleadings would burden the court. The investigating executive judge found Teves arrogant and discourteous, recommending a one-month-and-one-day suspension.

ISSUE

Whether a branch clerk of court may refuse to receive a pleading or motion based on his own assessment of its non-compliance with the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Court ruled that a clerk of court cannot refuse to receive a pleading on the ground of perceived non-compliance with procedural rules. The duty to receive pleadings, motions, and other court-bound papers is purely ministerial. While court personnel may, as part of public service, advise filing parties of possible defects in their documents, they cannot arrogate the judicial function of determining substantive or formal correctness. Compliance with the rules is the responsibility of the parties and their counsel, and the authority to rule on the sufficiency of pleadings rests solely with the judge.
The Court found Teves guilty of discourtesy in the course of official duties, a light offense under civil service rules. His stubborn refusal to receive the motion, despite the lawyer’s explanation, denied the counsel the courtesy of having the presiding judge decide the matter. This conduct violated the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, which mandates courtesy and respect. While no foul language was used, his act of arrogating a judicial function was discourteous. Considering his prior administrative record, though the instant incident preceded those final resolutions, it demonstrated a propensity for misbehavior. Accordingly, the Court imposed a penalty of thirty (30) days suspension with a stern warning.