NIO C. BOLOFER NEU-College of Law CASE DIGEST JUAN ENAJE VS FELIPE DUGAN G.R. No.

L-22109 January 30, 1970 EN BANC FACTS: This is a case for a collection of sum of money amounting to P85.00 by Juan Enaje, the Petitioner-Complainant against Felipe Dugan, Respondent filed before the Municipal Court of Gubat, Sorsogon. Mr. Enaje petitioned the Municipal Court for authority to litigate as pauper. He stated in his affidavit that he had been owner of several parcels of land, but that for several years prior to the filing of the complaint in the inferior court said parcels of land had been divided and partitioned amongst his children, whose in possession and paying the taxes thereon. That he no longer owned a single parcel of land, and had no income or means of livelihood. The Court denied the petition for leave to litigate as pauper based upon the certification of the municipal treasurer that a man by the name of Juan Enaje was owner of land under two Tax Declarations. The Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, emphasizing that he was not the same Juan Enaje referred to in the said tax declarations; it could have been the deceased Juan Enaje I or Juan Enaje II. The same motion for reconsideration is rejected by the court. The Petitioner went to Court of First Instance (now RTC) on Certiorari. The RTC allowed him to litigate as pauper but ruled that there is no grave abuse of discretion committed by the municipal judge. The Supreme Court under appeal granted permission to continue prosecuting as pauper and to submit a brief. ISSUE/S: a.) Whether or not, the petitioner should be allowed to litigate as pauper. b.) Whether or not, the municipal judge committed grave abuse of discretion.

RULING: RTC ruling SET ASIDE. Petitioner allowed to litigate as pauper in civil case before Justice of Peace (Municipal) of Gubat Sorsogon and that the municipal judge committed grave abuse of discretion. Cost against respondent. Difference between pauper and indigent, the latter are persons who have no property or source of income sufficient for their support aside from their own labor, though selfsupporting when able to work and in employment. Pauper refers to a person so poor that he must be supported at public expense. While in 1969 legislations (RA6033 and RA 6034) indigent litigants are referred to as person who has no visible means of income or whose income is insufficient for the subsistence of his family. Under R.A. 6035, anyone who has no visible means of support or whose income does not exceed P300/month or whose income even in excess of P300/month is insufficient for the subsistence of his family. Note: (RA6033, RA 6034 and RA6035; approved on August 16, 1969) Despite the affidavit of petitioner stating that he has neither property nor income, the municipal judge misconceived the same and relied merely on the certificate issued by the municipal treasurer. The judge should have taken into stock of petitioners vehement assertion that he is not the Juan Enaje mentioned in the tax declarations and that he had no source of income at all. Citing the case of Acar vs Rosal, it is the income of a litigant that is the determinative factor. For, really property may have no income, it may even be a financial burden.