Wabe v. Bionson December 30, 2003 | J. Callejo, Sr.

Overview: Clerk of Court Bionson issued summons against Wabe even if there was no case filed against her yet. After the judgment was rendered, she issued a writ of execution which was not exactly the same as the judgment because she added attorneys fees, exemplary damages and increased the interest rate. Bionson claims that it was done without malice but SC said that she acted beyond her scope of authority since summons can only be issued after filing of a complaint and payment of requisite fees. Also, a writ of execution which varies the tenor of the judgment or exceeds the terms is a nullity. Bionson was suspended for 3 months. Statement of the Case Noel Wabe filed an administrative case against Luisita Bionson, clerk of court, for issuing summons before a case was filed and adding sums of money in the writ of execution Deputy Court Administrator recommended 1 month suspension Executive Judge of RTC Malaybalay found that Bionson acted beyond her scope SC suspended Bionson for 3 months without pay with stern warning that repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely Statement of Facts Luisita Bionson, Clerk of Court of MTC of Malaybalay issued summons to Flora Wabe (wife of Noel Wabe, petitioner) dated November 15, 1999 even if there was no case filed against her (as the case was filed only on May 12, 2000) When the judgment in the case was rendered, Bionson added exemplary damages, attorneys fees and increased the interest rate from 6% to 10% in the writ of execution even if it wasnt in the judgment Bionson admitted error but said that it was done without malice and that she was very busy and just trusted the stenographer when he presented the writ of execution Deputy Court Administrator recommended suspension for 1 month with a stern warning Case was assigned to Executive Judge Venadas, Sr. of RTC Malaybalay for investigation, report and recommendation RTC ruled that o Bionson issued the summons without any legal authority because Sec 1 Rule 14 of Rules of Civ Pro allows only the issuance of a summons upon filing of a complaint and payment of requisite legal fees so if no complaint is filed and no payment of the fees is made, Clerk of Court has no authority to issue summons and could be guilty of grave abuse of discretion o Another serious violation of Bionson was that she directed the sheriff to seize and attach properties of Wabe for the satisfaction of the following P10,000 with legal rate of interest from October 17, 1998 until payment of 10% (judgment only asks for P10k interest starting December 30, 1998) Exemplary damages of P1k (not in judgment) Litigation expenses of P1k (present in judgment) Attorneys fees of P1k (not in judgment) o These actuations are in violation of her adjudicative support functions to prepare and sign summons and writs of execution as a Clerk of Court. Bionson clearly acted beyond her scope Issues: WON Bionson acted beyond her scope as Clerk of Court when she issued the summons and writ of execution (YES) Rationale Clerk of court shall issue summons only upon filing of the complaint and payment of the requisite legal fees - the rule is clear and it is the duty of the clerk of court to abide by it

One of the primary duties of a clerk of court is to uphold the law and implement pertinent rules must be assiduous in the performance of his duties because he performs delicate administrative functions essential to the prompt and proper administration of justice Bionson usurped a judicial function when she issued an ammended writ of execution and included awards not contained in the judgment An order of execution which varies the tenor of the judgment or exceeds the terms is a nullity The fact that Bionson admitted the error and a new writ was issued cannot exculpate her from the charges against her SC held that Bionson is guilty of misconduct and finds that the penalty of suspension for 3 months is proper