A.M. No. P-99-1307 - Collado v. Bravo

COLLADO vs. BRAVO_A.M. No.
P-99-1307_April 10, 2001
Facts:
In a complaint-affidavit dated July 14, 1997, complainant Lorena O. Collado charged respondent
Teresita 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.
In her affidavit, complainant alleged that on July 11, 1997, she received through priority mail, a
subpoena from the MTC of Naguilian, La Union, directing her to appear before the said court at
2:00 P.M., July 14, 1997. 1 The subpoena was duly signed by respondent in her capacity as Clerk
of Court. Before proceeding to said court, complainant sought assistance from the Office of the
Governor of La Union and Mr. Arthur T. Madayag, Legal Assistant II of the Provincial Legal
Office, who was detailed to accompany her to court.
Upon arriving at the MTC of Naguilian, complainant talked to respondent. When complainant
asked for copies of the complaint and other details of the case, respondent replied that no
complaint had been filed and her intention in issuing the subpoena was to allow a certain
Perla Baterina, the labor recruiter of complainant's son, Emmanuel Collado, to talk to
complainant.
Complainant claimed that she felt humiliated, harassed, and experienced extreme nervousness as
a result of respondent's issuance of the subpoena.
In her answer dated October 6, 1997, respondent admitted issuing the subpoena. She claimed,
however, that it was done with good intentions since she only acceded to the urgent request of
the spouses Rogelio and Perla Baterina who came to her office on July 7, 1997, airing their
grievances against complainant. Respondent averred that her only purpose in issuing the
subpoena was to enable complainant and the Baterinas to settle their differences. 3
Decision:
Respondent's act of issuing the subpoena to complainant was evidently not directly or remotely
connected with respondent's judicial or administrative duties. It appears that she merely wanted
to act as a mediator or conciliator in the dispute between complainant and the Baterinas, upon the
request of the latter.
Respondent as Clerk of Court is primarily tasked with making out and issuing all writs and
processes issuing from the court. She should have known or ought to know what a
subpoena is. "A subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring him to attend and to
testify at the hearing or the trial of an action, or at any investigation conducted by
competent authority, or for the taking of his deposition." 4 She should have known that a
process is "the means whereby a court compels the appearance of the defendant before it;
or a compliance with its demands." 5 Hence, absent any proceedings, suit, or action
commenced or pending before a court, a subpoena may not issue. In this case, respondent
knew there was no case filed against complainant. Neither had complainant commenced
any proceeding against the Baterinas for whose benefit the subpoena was issued.
Respondent, then, had absolutely neither the power nor the authority nor the duty to issue
a subpoena to the complainant. 6
Perusal of the subpoena she issued to complainant shows that the form used was the one used in
criminal cases, giving complainant the impression that her failure to appear would subject her to
"the penalty of law," and that the subpoena was issued with the trial court's sanction. We find,
therefore, that respondent was using without authority some element of state coercion against
complainant who was understandably compelled to heed the contents of the subpoena resulting
in her humiliation. Such naked abuse of authority by complainant could not be allowed to pass
without appropriate sanction. Accordingly, this Court has no recourse but to agree with the
recommendation of the OCA that respondent be disciplined and fined.
WHEREFORE, respondent Teresita G. Bravo is hereby found GUILTY of Grave Misconduct

and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service for which she is fined Five Thousand
Pesos (P5,000.00) with a WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act would be treated
more severely.
SO ORDERED.

A.M. No. P-99-1307 - Collado v. Bravo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.M. No. P-99-1307 - Collado v. Bravo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A.M. No. P-99-1307 - Collado v. Bravo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COLLADO vs. BRAVO_A.M. No.

P-99-1307_April 10, 2001

WHEREFORE, respondent Teresita G. Bravo is hereby found GUILTY of Grave Misconduct

You might also like