G.R. No. 132852 May 31, 2000
TEOFILO MARTINEZ, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Teofilo Martinez was accused of homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City. During trial, his counsel from the Public Attorney’s Office objected to the testimony of a prosecution witness, invoking a testimonial privilege for children in cases involving their parents. The trial court overruled the objection. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, challenging the trial court’s orders. Simultaneously, he filed a Motion to Litigate as Pauper, supported by his own affidavit and those of two disinterested persons, to be exempt from paying docket fees.
The Court of Appeals denied the motion to litigate as a pauper and directed petitioner to pay the docket fees. Petitioner’s counsel subsequently paid the fees “under protest,” stating the amount was advanced from his own funds. However, the appellate court dismissed the petition for failure to pay the full docket fee, citing a shortage, and denied reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s motion to litigate as a pauper and dismissing his petition for certiorari.

RULING

Yes, the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court clarified the procedural rules governing indigent litigants. While the old rule (Sec. 16, Rule 41 of the 1964 Revised Rules of Court) prohibited appellate courts from entertaining petitions to appeal as paupers, the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure removed this restriction. The new rules, specifically Section 21 of Rule 3 and Section 18 of Rule 141, allow a party to be authorized to litigate as an indigent upon application and hearing, based on evidence of insufficient means.
The Court emphasized the constitutional mandate to provide free access to courts for paupers. It found that petitioner had sufficiently established his indigency through his affidavit and supporting joint affidavit, which attested that his family’s gross monthly income did not exceed P3,000 and their only property was a hut valued under P10,000. These submissions complied with the evidentiary requirements. Therefore, the appellate court’s denial of the motion and dismissal of the petition, despite this compliance, constituted grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court set aside the assailed resolutions and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals with instructions to allow petitioner to litigate as a pauper and to refund the docket fees paid.