Case Digest (A.M. No. P-99-1307)
Facts:
Lorena O. Collado v. Teresita G. Bravo, A.M. No. P-99-1307 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 97-323-P), April 10, 2001, the Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Lorena O. Collado filed a complaint-affidavit dated July 14, 1997, charging respondent Teresa G. Bravo, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Naguilian, La Union, with Grave Misconduct and/or Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service. Collado alleged that on July 11, 1997 she received by priority mail a subpoena signed by respondent directing her to appear at the MTC on July 14, 1997 at 2:00 P.M.
Before going to court, Collado sought assistance from the Office of the Governor of La Union and from Mr. Arthur T. Madayag, Legal Assistant II of the Provincial Legal Office, who was detailed to accompany her. Upon arrival at the MTC, Collado spoke with respondent and requested copies of the complaint and other case details; respondent admitted she had issued the subpoena but stated that no complaint had in fact been filed and that she issued the subpoena to enable Perla Baterina—the labor recruiter of Collado’s son—to speak with Collado. Collado claimed humiliation, harassment, and extreme nervousness resulting from the issuance.
In her answer dated October 6, 1997, respondent admitted issuing the subpoena but explained she did so at the urgent request of spouses Rogelio and Perla Baterina who came to her office on July 7, 1997; respondent said her purpose was to facilitate settlement between the parties. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in a Memorandum dated February 8, 1999, recommended that the complaint be docketed as an administrative matter and that respondent be fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for Grave Misconduct with a warning that a similar act would merit a more serious penalty.
The Court required...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether respondent’s issuance of a subpoena to complainant in the absence of any pending case or proceeding constitutes *Grave Misconduct* or *Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service*.
- Whether the penalty of a Five Thousand Peso (P5,000.00) fine with a warning is appropriate for ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)