G.R. No. L-82273, June 1, 1990
Joaquin T. Borromeo, petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals and Samson Lao, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Joaquin T. Borromeo filed a complaint for damages with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu against several Supreme Court personnel, namely Attys. Julieta Y. Carreon, Alfredo P. Marasigan, and Jose I. Ilustre. He alleged they usurped judicial functions by issuing a “biased, fake, baseless and unconstitutional” Resolution and Entry of Judgment in G.R. No. 82273. The complaint stemmed from the Supreme Court’s Third Division’s denial of his petition via a minute resolution. Borromeo claimed this resolution, and its subsequent entry of judgment, violated constitutional requirements as it lacked the Justices’ signatures, a certification from the Chief Justice, and a statement of facts and law.
This was not Borromeo’s first such action. He had previously filed similar complaints against court officials, consistently arguing that minute resolutions disposing of his cases were unconstitutional. In the instant civil case, he sought moral damages for the alleged “wanton, malicious and deceitful acts” of the defendants, which he claimed caused him mental anguish and other injuries.

ISSUE

Whether the Supreme Court clerks of court and other personnel can be held liable in a damage suit for issuing minute resolutions and entries of judgment that are official actions of the Supreme Court itself.

RULING

The Supreme Court En Banc dismissed the complaint and ordered the trial judge to quash the summons and dismiss the case. The Court explained that minute resolutions are a valid and constitutional exercise of its judicial power, essential for the prompt dispatch of its enormous caseload. The September 13, 1989 resolution in question, which spanned four pages, adequately complied with legal requirements for denying a petition for review. It was the product of the Third Division’s thorough deliberations in several sessions.
The Court emphasized that all decisions and resolutions are actions of the Court, not its subordinate personnel. The Clerk of Court’s role is purely ministerial—to transmit and quote the Court’s adopted resolution to the parties. Clerks do not participate in deliberations or exercise judicial discretion. Therefore, court officers cannot and should not be made to answer for the Court’s judicial acts. The Court assumes full responsibility for its own resolutions. To allow suits against personnel for carrying out such duties would paralyze the Court’s operations and constitute an affront to judicial independence.
Consequently, the Court ordered all judges and lawyers to refrain from entertaining or filing harassment suits against Supreme Court officers for actions taken in the course of official duties involving Court resolutions. Such complaints must be forwarded to the Supreme Court itself. Violation of this order would constitute gross ignorance of the law.