A.M. No. P-03-1760. December 30, 2003. NOEL G. WABE, complainant, vs. LUISITA P. BIONSON, Clerk of Court of Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Malaybalay City, respondent.
FACTS

Noel G. Wabe filed an administrative complaint for grave misconduct against respondent Luisita P. Bionson, Clerk of Court of the MTCC of Malaybalay City. The complainant alleged two specific acts. First, the respondent issued a summons dated November 15, 1999, to his wife, Flora A. Wabe, when the corresponding civil case for sum of money was only filed on May 12, 2000. Second, in a Writ of Execution dated August 14, 2001, the respondent added monetary awards not contained in the court’s judgment. The judgment awarded only P10,000.00 as actual damages with 6% interest from December 30, 1998, and P1,000.00 as litigation expenses. The writ, however, imposed a 10% interest starting from an earlier date, and added exemplary damages and attorney’s fees of P1,000.00 each.
In her defense, the respondent admitted the error in the writ but explained it was due to her heavy workload and trust in her stenographer, and that the writ was later recalled and replaced. Regarding the premature summons, she claimed it was a long-standing court practice to issue summons before filing to encourage amicable settlement, a practice inherited from previous judges.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Luisita P. Bionson is administratively liable for her actions in issuing a summons without a filed complaint and in preparing a writ of execution that deviated from the court’s judgment.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of misconduct. The Supreme Court found her explanations untenable. Section 1, Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is explicit: a clerk of court can only issue a summons “upon the filing of the complaint and the payment of the requisite legal fees.” Issuing a summons without a filed case is a clear violation of this rule and constitutes a grave abuse of authority. The defense of “long-standing practice” does not justify an illegal act.
Furthermore, preparing a writ of execution that contains awards not decreed in the dispositive portion of the judgment is a serious infraction. A writ of execution must conform strictly to the judgment; it cannot modify, expand, or subtract from the court’s decree. The respondent’s claim of heavy workload and reliance on a subordinate does not absolve her. As a clerk of court, she performs delicate administrative functions vital to the administration of justice and must exercise diligence and fidelity to the law and court directives.
The Court classified her actions as misconduct, a less grave offense. Considering her length of service and the absence of proven bad faith, but emphasizing the gravity of the violations which undermined judicial processes, the Court suspended her for three (3) months with a stern warning.