G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-08-1709; July 31, 2009
Lanie Cervantes, Complainant, vs. Judge Heriberto M. Pangilinan and Clerk of Court III Carmenchita P. Baloco, both of Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Cuyo-Agutaya-Magsaysay, Palawan, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Lanie Cervantes was charged with Slander. Respondent Judge Heriberto Pangilinan issued a warrant for her arrest and set bail at ₱2,000. After pleading not guilty at arraignment, Cervantes later attempted to file a Motion to Admit Counter-Affidavit. Respondent Clerk of Court Carmenchita Baloco refused to accept the pleading, citing the absence of the judge and a lack of proper proof of service on the opposing party. Judge Pangilinan subsequently also refused to admit the motion, stating it was filed belatedly after arraignment. This prompted Cervantes to file an administrative complaint for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service and Ignorance of the Law against both respondents.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Pangilinan and Clerk of Court Baloco are administratively liable for their actions in handling the criminal case for Slander and the subsequent motion.

RULING

Yes, but with distinctions based on their respective roles and the subsequent circumstances. The Supreme Court found that the case for simple slander, punishable by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding ₱200, was governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure. Under these rules, the judge should not have immediately issued a warrant of arrest. More critically, the judge was obligated to order the accused to submit a counter-affidavit before arraignment. Judge Pangilinan’s failure to follow this procedure and his subsequent refusal to admit the belated counter-affidavit, which could have allowed a proper defense, constituted ignorance of the law. His act of issuing the warrant also violated the provisions of Republic Act No. 6036 , which generally prohibits requiring bail for offenses punishable by no more than arresto mayor and/or a ₱2,000 fine. For these infractions, the Court would have imposed a fine of ₱10,000. However, due to Judge Pangilinan’s death pending the case, the administrative complaint against him was dismissed.
Regarding Clerk of Court Baloco, while her refusal to accept the motion was technically based on a directive from the judge regarding proof of service, the Court emphasized that court personnel must exercise courtesy and diligence, especially towards litigants in remote areas who may not know procedural rules. Her rigid application, without considering that the motion indicated service by mail, fell short of this standard. However, as she was following the judge’s orders and her actions did not rise to the level of gross misconduct, the complaint against her was dismissed. She was, however, ADMONISHED to be more circumspect and helpful in dealing with the public.