Concepcion v. Hubilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Ignacio R. Concepcion inquired about the fees payable to clerks of court acting as commissioners in ex-parte proceedings. He had pending cases where clerks of court were appointed commissioners to receive evidence ex parte and subsequently charged his clients fees without issuing receipts. Procedural History: The Court Administrator investigated the matter. Atty. Ma. Cheryl L. Ceguera admitted receiving compensation, claiming it was voluntarily given and for transcripts. Atty. Ronaldo Hubilla admitted charging a commissioner's fee of P2,500.00, citing existing practice and division among court staff. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended treating Atty. Concepcion's letter as a complaint against Atty. Hubilla, as Atty. Ceguera was no longer under their supervision. The Court adopted this recommendation and directed Atty. Hubilla to explain. The Petition: Atty. Hubilla explained his actions, citing his prior experience as a litigation lawyer where such fees were paid and accepted, with receipts acknowledged by the Commission on Audit under Section 13, Rule 32 of the Revised Rules of Court. He claimed good faith, issuance of a receipt, and lack of awareness of the prohibition, stating he was new to his position. He also noted he returned the fee before receiving the Court's Resolution and had a long, unblemished record in government service. The Manual for Clerks of Court, however, explicitly prohibits Branch Clerks of Court from demanding or receiving commissioner's fees for reception of evidence ex parte.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Ronaldo Hubilla is liable for administrative sanctions for accepting commissioner's fees. Whether the practice of accepting commissioner's fees by clerks of court in ex parte proceedings is legally permissible.
Ruling
Respondent Atty. Ronaldo Hubilla is reprimanded for having accepted a commissioner's fee for receiving evidence ex parte. The Court found him remiss in his duty to familiarize himself with the functions of his office, particularly the limitations and prohibitions attached thereto. However, considering it is his first offense after twelve years in government service, the penalty of reprimand was deemed appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Atty. Hubilla's liability for accepting commissioner's fees: The Court found Atty. Hubilla liable for accepting a commissioner's fee for receiving evidence ex parte. The Manual for Clerks of Court, specifically Chapter II, Section B, explicitly states that no Branch Clerk of Court shall demand and/or receive commissioner's fees for the reception of evidence ex parte. This provision clearly prohibits such actions, irrespective of any perceived existing practice or belief that it was permissible. Atty. Hubilla's assertion that he was unaware of this provision demonstrates a failure to exercise due diligence in understanding the scope and limitations of his official duties. His claim of good faith, while noted, does not absolve him from administrative responsibility for violating a clear prohibition. On the legality of accepting commissioner's fees by clerks of court in ex parte proceedings: The Court unequivocally ruled that clerks of court are not authorized to collect compensation for services rendered as commissioners in ex-parte proceedings. The Court Administrator's directive to all clerks of court to cease and desist from demanding and receiving personal compensation in such capacities, due to the absence of a legal basis, was affirmed. The Revised Rules of Court, specifically Section 13 of Rule 32, pertains to the compensation of a commissioner appointed by the court, which is to be taxed as costs or apportioned, and does not grant clerks of court the right to demand personal fees for performing such duties when appointed ex officio. The Court emphasized that such actions are contrary to the established rules and regulations governing the conduct of court personnel.
Main Doctrine
Clerks of court are not authorized to collect compensation for services rendered as commissioners in ex-parte proceedings. Failure to familiarize oneself with the limitations and prohibitions attached to their office constitutes a breach of duty, though first offense after long government service may warrant a reprimand.