GR 22109; (January, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22109 January 30, 1970
JUAN ENAJE, petitioner-appellant, vs. VICTORIO RAMOS, Justice of the Peace of the Municipality of Gubat, SORSOGON, and FELIPE F. Dugan, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Petitioner Juan Enaje sought to litigate as a pauper in a civil case for recovery of P85.00 before the Municipal Court of Gubat, Sorsogon. He filed an affidavit stating he had previously owned land but had partitioned it among his children years before, no longer owned or possessed any land, and had no income or means of livelihood. The municipal judge denied the petition based on a certification from the municipal treasurer that a “Juan Enaje” owned land under specific Tax Declarations. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, asserting he was not the same Juan Enaje referred to in the tax declarations (who could have been deceased individuals named Juan Enaje I or II) and reaffirmed his lack of means. The motion was denied. Petitioner then filed a certiorari petition with the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, which also ruled that the municipal judge did not gravely abuse his discretion in disallowing the pauper status. Petitioner appealed from the CFI’s orders.
ISSUE
Whether or not the judges below committed a grave abuse of discretion in refusing to allow petitioner to prosecute his action as a pauper litigant.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Court of First Instance and allowed petitioner to litigate as a pauper. The Court held that the constitutional guarantee that “[f]ree access to the courts shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty” must be liberally applied. A “pauper litigant” under the implementing rules does not mean absolute destitution but refers to an indigent person—one who has no visible means of income or whose income is insufficient for support. The municipal judge gravely abused his discretion by relying solely on the treasurer’s certificate referencing a name without addressing petitioner’s specific sworn denial of ownership and assertion of no income. Even assuming petitioner owned property, ownership alone does not preclude indigency if the property generates no income. The determinative factor is income, not mere property ownership. Therefore, petitioner should have been permitted to sue as a pauper.