Case Digest (A.M. No. P-15-3304)
Facts:
Melquiades A. Robles, Complainant, vs. Clerk of Court V Duke Thaddeus R. Maog, Regional Trial Court, Branch 155, Pasig City, et al., A.M. No. P-15-3304 (Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 11-3670-P), July 01, 2015, Supreme Court First Division, Perez, J., writing for the Court.The administrative proceeding arose from a Complaint‑Affidavit dated 12 February 2007 filed by then LRTA Administrator Melquiades A. Robles against Clerk of Court (COC) Duke Thaddeus R. Maog and Sheriff Domingo R. Garcia, both employees of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Pasig City. Robles alleged, inter alia, graft and falsification in connection with a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction issued in Civil Case No. 71029 (Metro East Grand Transport Federation, Inc. v. Melquiades Robles, et al.) that sought to restore plaintiff’s access to and operation of a leased terminal.
The Office of the Ombudsman dismissed the complaint against the court employees and, citing Maceda v. Vasquez and Judge Caoibes v. Hon. Ombudsman and its internal memorandum, referred the matter to the Supreme Court for action against judicial personnel. The referral placed administrative discipline within the Court’s exclusive competency over employees of the judiciary.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) investigated and recommended findings. In a Resolution dated 18 February 2015 the Court adopted the OCA’s conclusions: it found COC Maog guilty of simple misconduct for including in the writ the phrase ordering the “turn over the possession and operation of the subject terminal to plaintiff,” and imposed one (1) month suspension; the other charges against Maog and Sheriff Garcia were dismissed as lacking merit or being judicial in nature. COC Maog filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration contesting the penalty and defending his inclusion of the phrase as a clarification of the trial court’s order.
The present resolution resolves that Motion for Partial Reconsideration. The Court reviewed the scope of a clerk’s authority under Section 4, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court and considered factual circum...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did COC Duke Thaddeus R. Maog commit simple misconduct by inserting the phrase ordering the turnover of possession and operation of the terminal into the writ, thereby arrogating judicial authority?
- If liable, was the one‑month suspension appropriate or should the p...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)