Nieva v. Alvarez-Edad
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This administrative case originated from a complaint filed by Maritoni M. Nieva, a former legal researcher, against Saturnina Alvarez-Edad, the Branch Clerk of Court of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 32, Quezon City. The complainant alleged several administrative offenses against the respondent, including falsification of daily time records, dishonesty, demanding or receiving commissioner's fees for ex-parte reception of evidence, conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, issuing certified true copies of warrants of arrest without payment of fees, and discourtesy in the conduct of official business. Specific allegations included discrepancies in the respondent's daily time records compared to the office logbook, demanding P1,500.00 as a commissioner's fee from a litigant and accepting P500.00 disguised as payment for stenographic notes, harassing court staff, allowing bail posting without personal appearance, issuing official documents without proper fees, and causing the dismissal of a utility worker. Procedural History: The administrative complaint was filed with the Supreme Court, which initially referred it to the Executive Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon City, for investigation. The Executive Judge, Gregorio D. Dayrit, submitted a report finding the respondent guilty of dishonesty for demanding and collecting a commissioner's fee, recommending a one-year suspension. This Court then referred the Executive Judge's report to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation. Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock, in his evaluation, recommended exoneration from most charges but found the respondent guilty of violating the Manual for Clerks of Court by demanding and collecting a commissioner's fee. The OCA recommended a fine of P1,000.00 and a severe reprimand, considering it a first offense. The Petition: This Court reviewed the findings and recommendations of the OCA. While agreeing that the respondent committed a violation by demanding and receiving a commissioner's fee, the Court found the OCA's recommended penalty of a fine and reprimand to be too lenient. The Court emphasized the strict standards of conduct expected of court personnel and determined that the respondent's actions constituted simple misconduct, a less grave offense. Consequently, the Court found Saturnina Alvarez-Edad guilty of demanding and receiving a commissioner's fee in violation of the Manual for Clerks of Court and imposed a penalty of two months' suspension without pay, with a stern warning against repetition of the offense.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Saturnina Alvarez-Edad is guilty of the administrative offenses charged, excluding the charge of demanding and receiving commissioner's fees. Whether respondent's act of demanding and receiving commissioner's fees for an ex-parte hearing constitutes dishonesty or a violation of the Manual for Clerks of Court. What is the appropriate penalty for the proven offense.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Saturnina Alvarez-Edad GUILTY of demanding/receiving commissioner's fee in violation of Section B, Chapter II and Section D (7), Chapter IV of the Manual for Clerks of Court. She was SUSPENDED for two (2) months without pay and WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On other charges: The Court, adopting the findings of the OCA, exonerated the respondent from the other charges, including falsification of DTRs, dishonesty (in relation to the commissioner's fee, reclassified as a violation of the Manual), conduct unbecoming of a public official, favoring a litigant, issuing certified true copies without fees, and discourtesy. The complainant failed to prove these charges by substantial evidence. The Court noted that the respondent was a first-time offender with ten years of service, and the proven offense was treated as an isolated incident. On the charge of demanding and receiving commissioner's fees: The Court affirmed that respondent violated Section B, Chapter II of the Manual for Clerks of Court, which explicitly states that "No Branch Clerk of Court shall demand and/or receive commissioner's fees for the reception of evidence ex-parte." This prohibition was reiterated in Circular No. 50-2001. The Court emphasized that to be entitled to compensation, a commissioner must not be an employee of the court, as stated in Section D (7), Chapter IV of the same Manual. Respondent, being a court employee, had no authority to demand or receive such fees. The Court cited the case of RTC Makati Movement Against Graft and Corruption vs. Atty. Inocencio E. Dumlao to underscore the prohibition against Branch Clerks of Court receiving commissioner's fees. The Court found that respondent's act of demanding and receiving the fee, even if receipted as payment for stenographic notes, was a clear transgression of the rules. The Court noted that respondent's defense regarding authorization from the presiding judge was irrelevant, as the prohibition in the Manual is absolute for Branch Clerks of Court. The Court also pointed out that respondent, as a non-lawyer, should have known that only a member of the bar could be authorized to receive evidence ex-parte under Section 9, Rule 30 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court found that respondent's transgression constituted simple misconduct, classified as a less grave offense under the Revised Uniform Rules On Administrative Cases In The Civil Service. The provided text does not contain specific details about the penalty imposed. Therefore, this section cannot be completed based on the given information.
Main Doctrine
A Branch Clerk of Court is prohibited from demanding and/or receiving commissioner's fees for the reception of evidence ex-parte, as this constitutes a violation of the Manual for Clerks of Court and constitutes simple misconduct.