FACTS:
Teofilo Martinez, herein
petitioner, was accused of homicide. Before the Regional Trial Court,
petitioner filed a motion to be allowed to litigate as pauper. However, this
was denied by the trial court and prompted petitioner to go to the Court of
Appeals by way of petition for certiorari. Petitioner alleged that the trial
court acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction
when it issued the assailed orders.
Later on, petitioner also
filed with the Court of Appeals a motion to litigate as pauper attaching
thereto affidavits by himself and two disinterested persons of his eligibility
to avail this privilege. The appellate court subsequently issued a resolution
denying the motion and directing the petitioner to pay the proper docketing
fees within five (5) days from notice. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a motion
for reconsideration but this was also denied by the appellate court. Petitioner
then filed a manifestation through his counsel that he was transmitting the
docket fees required "under protest" and that the money was advanced
by his counsel. The transmittal was evidenced by two (2) postal money orders
attached to the motion to litigate as pauper.
In the assailed resolution,
the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner
failed to pay the required docket fees. Petitioner moved for reconsideration
citing his compliance with the required docket fee. In the second assailed
resolution, the Court of Appeals denied the latest motion on the ground that it
was short of 150.00.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of
Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying petitioner's motion to
appeal as pauper litigant?
RULING:
In the case at bar, the
Supreme Court applied the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure. The Court held that a
motion to litigate as indigent can be made even before the appellate courts,
either for the prosecution of appeals, in petitions for review or in special
civil actions. It maintained that the interpretation of the present rules is
more in keeping with the Bill of Rights, which decrees that "free access
to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not
be denied to any person by reason of poverty."
A perusal of the records shows
that petitioner complied with all the evidentiary requirements for prosecuting
a motion to appear in court as pauper. The affidavits executed by himself and
two other disinterested persons were enough to convince the court that
petitioner is qualified to litigate as indigent.
The assailed resolutions of
the Court of Appeals were set aside for having been issued with grave abuse of
discretion. Accordingly, the case is remanded for appropriate action to the
Court of Appeals which is further ordered to allow the petitioner to litigate
as pauper and to return to him the docket fees he paid.
