G.R. No. A.M. No. P-15-3304. July 1, 2015.
MELQUIADES A. ROBLES, Complainant, vs. CLERK OF COURT V DUKE THADDEUS R. MAOG and SHERIFF IV DOMINGO R. GARCIA, JR., Respondents.

FACTS

The administrative case originated from a Complaint-Affidavit filed by Melquiades A. Robles, then Administrator of the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA), against Clerk of Court Atty. Duke Thaddeus R. Maog and Sheriff Domingo R. Garcia, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City, for alleged violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and falsification of public document. The complaint pertained to a Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued in Civil Case No. 71029, entitled “Metro East Grand Transport Federation, Inc. v. Melquiades Robles, et al.” The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint and referred the matter to the Supreme Court for appropriate action, citing the Court’s jurisdiction over court personnel.
In a Resolution dated February 18, 2015, the Court found COC Maog guilty of simple misconduct for arrogating judicial authority in issuing a Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction dated January 30, 2007. The writ included the phrase “and turn over the possession and operation of the subject terminal to plaintiff,” which was not present in the dispositive portion of the trial court’s Order dated January 11, 2007, issued by Judge Luis R. Tongco. The Order had granted the application for a writ to preserve the status quo ante, commanding defendants to open the terminal compound and provide plaintiff free ingress and egress, conditioned upon a bond. COC Maog was suspended for one month, while other charges against him and Sheriff Garcia were dismissed.
COC Maog filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, arguing that the inclusion of the phrase was justified because it reflected the prayer in the plaintiff’s application, which was granted by the trial court, and was necessary to preserve the status quo ante, as the plaintiff had prior possession under a Lease Agreement.

ISSUE

Whether the penalty of one-month suspension imposed on COC Maog for simple misconduct should be reduced in light of mitigating circumstances.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the Motion for Partial Reconsideration and reduced the penalty. The Court upheld its finding that COC Maog overstepped his authority by including the phrase “turn over the possession and operation” in the writ, as clerks of court perform only administrative, not judicial, functions under Section 4, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court. Any clarification of a court order must come from the judge, not the clerk of court.
However, the Court recognized several mitigating circumstances: (1) COC Maog acted in good faith, believing the writ conformed to the trial court’s order; (2) he was newly appointed (barely five months as clerk of court) and the writ was his first of its kind; (3) this was his first offense in twelve years of judiciary service; (4) no other administrative complaints had been filed against him; (5) the complainant failed to seek clarification from the court initially, instead filing an administrative complaint; and (6) the order and writ had attained finality by the time the complaint reached the Court, with Judge Tongco having retired and passed away.
Considering these extenuating factors, the Court tempered the penalty. The one-month suspension was set aside, and COC Maog was instead reprimanded with a warning that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. He was reminded to be circumspect in his duties to avoid arrogating judicial functions. The charges against Sheriff Garcia remained dismissed.