G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-20-4039 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 18-4840-P), February 26, 2020
Case Parties: Judge Wenie D. Espinosa, Complainant, v. Rodolfo Richard P. Balisnomo, Clerk of Court IV, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Sipalay, Negros Occidental, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Judge Wenie D. Espinosa, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Sipalay, Negros Occidental, charged respondent Rodolfo Richard P. Balisnomo, Clerk of Court IV of the same court, with insubordination. The charge stemmed from respondent’s refusal to issue a writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction in Civil Case No. 383 (“G Holdings, Inc. v. Leonora Hernandez, et al.”), despite the complainant’s Order dated June 30, 2016, granting the writ and a subsequent Order dated July 21, 2016, denying the defendants’ motion for reconsideration. The respondent, in his defense, justified his refusal by citing the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, which he interpreted as limiting his authority to signing writs of execution only, not writs of preliminary injunction. He also invoked a later Decision dated January 27, 2017, by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kabankalan City, which declared the complainant’s twin Orders void for grave abuse of discretion. The complainant countered that his orders were valid until nullified by a competent court and that the respondent’s refusal constituted willful insubordination. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the respondent guilty and recommended a two-month suspension without pay.

ISSUE

Is respondent Rodolfo Richard P. Balisnomo guilty of insubordination?

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of insubordination. The Supreme Court defined insubordination as a refusal to obey a lawful order which a superior is entitled to give. The respondent’s reliance on the Revised Manual for Clerks of Court was misplaced. While Chapter 7 (D) specifies that clerks of court prepare and sign “writs of execution,” it also explicitly mandates under the “Non-adjudicative Functions” that a clerk of court “performs other duties that may be assigned to him.” The complainant judge’s directive to issue the writ was a lawful assignment of such an additional duty. Furthermore, the subsequent RTC decision nullifying the orders did not justify the respondent’s prior disobedience, as the orders were presumed valid until annulled. Thus, the respondent’s deliberate refusal constituted insubordination, a less grave offense under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, punishable by suspension of one month and one day to six months for the first offense. Considering the presence of an aggravating circumstance—the respondent’s previous administrative liability for simple misconduct in A.M. No. P-16-3607—and the absence of any mitigating circumstance, the Court imposed the maximum penalty. Respondent Rodolfo Richard P. Balisnomo is found GUILTY of insubordination and is SUSPENDED for six (6) months without pay, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition shall be dealt with more severely.