Wednesday, September 01, 2004 Fiscal refused ‘free’ motion; prosecutors seek exemption By Karlon N. Rama Sun.Star Staff Reporter
WILL public prosecutors be covered under the High Tribunal’s new rule requiring lawyers to pay P200 for every motion they raise before the Regional Trial Court (RTC)?
This question popped up yesterday after staff members from RTC Judge Aproniano Taypin’s sala supposedly refused to accept an ex-parte motion for extension of time submitted by Assistant City Prosecutor Victor Laborte, unless he paid the fee.
“Why should I be asked to pay? This is not my case. It was merely assigned to me, together with almost a hundred others. Am I supposed to pay for that also?” Laborte said in an interview yesterday afternoon.
City Prosecutor Cezar Tajanlangit said government prosecutors, like lawyers from the Office of the Public Attorney, are supposed to be exempted from the required fees.
Where it goes
When interviewed yesterday, he called up the sala of RTC Executive Judge Simeon Dumdum to inquire if there had been any policy change and was told that there was none.
“Maybe it was a mere miscommunication on the part of Judge Taypin’s staff. But I’m sure that this can be easily addressed,” Tajanlangit said.
Lawyers from Cebu City earlier rallied in front of the Palace of Justice to protest the Supreme Court’s amendment to Rule 141 of the Rules on Civil Procedure.
The amendment effectively increases the filing fees traditionally collected by the court. It also imposes fees for proceedings that, until recently, were free.
Lawyers who ask for the postponement of a hearing or proceeding now have to pay P200, plus P50 per similar subsequent motion.
The money goes to the Judicial Development Fund (JDF), established during the Marcos regime to augment the cost of living allowances for judges and court personnel.
Part of it also goes to the Special Allowance for Judges fund, created through Republic Act 9227 to increase the take-home pay of judges by increasing their allowances.
Motion
Tajanlangit said the office does not question the court’s implementation of the amended Rule 141, but the prosecution service and the Office of the Public Attorney need to be exempted.
“I think it is already deemed exempted but some people are just not aware of it,” he said.
Laborte’s rejected pleading involved the frustrated murder case against John Lloyd Ortiz, the young man accused of trying to kill radioman Cirse “Choy” Torralba.
Ortiz’s lawyer, Frank Malilong, filed a motion for re-investigation asking the court to order the Office of the Cebu City Prosecutor to study the complaint again.
The court issued the order and gave the office until Sept. 3, 2004 to submit a report.
Laborte said he has already directed the respondent to submit his counter-affidavit but none has been submitted yet.
Knowing that the deadline is near and arguing that he doesn’t want to dismiss the motion over a technicality, he wanted the court to extend the period at least until the end of the month.
(September 1, 2004 issue) Write letter to the editor.Click here. Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here.
