Concepcion v. Hubilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Ignacio R. Concepcion inquired about the fees payable to clerks of court for receiving evidence in ex-parte proceedings. He had pending cases involving petitions for cancellation of encumbrance, adoption, and issuance of a new owner's copy of title, where clerks of court were appointed commissioners to receive evidence ex parte. After these proceedings, the clerks of court allegedly charged his clients commissioner's fees without issuing receipts. Procedural History: The Supreme Court, through the Court Administrator, directed clerks of court to cease demanding and receiving personal compensation as commissioners in ex-parte proceedings and to investigate those who did. The investigation identified Atty. Ma. Cheryl L. Ceguera and Atty. Ronaldo Hubilla as having received compensation. Atty. Ceguera claimed the amounts were voluntarily given and for transcripts, while Atty. Hubilla admitted charging a commissioner's fee, citing existing practice and lack of awareness of the prohibition. The Court Administrator recommended treating the query as an administrative complaint against Atty. Hubilla, who was directed to explain. Atty. Hubilla submitted an explanation, citing his prior experience as a lawyer where such fees were paid and accepted, supported by receipts cleared by the Commission on Audit, and his belief in good faith. He also mentioned being new to his position and that the fee was returned before the Court's resolution. He also noted his subsequent appointment as Assistant City Prosecutor and his long government service without prior administrative cases. The Petition: This case originated from a letter-query by Atty. Concepcion to the Court Administrator regarding the propriety of clerks of court collecting commissioner's fees in ex-parte proceedings. The Supreme Court treated this as an administrative complaint against Atty. Hubilla, who was asked to explain his actions. The core issue before the Court was whether Atty. Hubilla committed an administrative offense by accepting a commissioner's fee for receiving evidence ex parte.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Ronaldo Hubilla committed an administrative offense by accepting a commissioner's fee for receiving evidence ex parte. Whether ignorance of the prohibition against receiving such fees constitutes a valid defense.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Ronaldo Hubilla liable for accepting a commissioner's fee for receiving evidence ex parte. While acknowledging his claim of ignorance and good faith, the Court held that he was remiss in his duty to familiarize himself with the functions of his office, particularly the limitations and prohibitions. Considering it was his first offense after twelve years in government service, the Court imposed the penalty of reprimand.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether Atty. Ronaldo Hubilla committed an administrative offense by accepting a commissioner's fee for receiving evidence ex parte: The Court held that Atty. Hubilla committed an administrative offense. The Manual for Clerks of Court explicitly states in Chapter II, Section B, that "No Branch Clerk of Court shall demand and/or receive commissioner’s fees for reception of evidence ex parte." This provision clearly prohibits such actions. Atty. Hubilla, as a clerk of court, was bound to know and follow this rule. His act of charging and receiving a commissioner's fee directly contravened this established prohibition, thereby constituting an administrative offense. On Whether ignorance of the prohibition against receiving such fees constitutes a valid defense: The Court ruled that ignorance of the prohibition was not a valid defense. It found that Atty. Hubilla was remiss in his duty to familiarize himself with the functions of his office, including the limitations and prohibitions attached thereto. While he claimed to have acted in good faith and believed the practice was allowed due to prior experience and Commission on Audit clearance of similar payments in his previous capacity, the Court emphasized that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. The existence of a manual and clear rules governing the conduct of court personnel necessitates that they be aware of these regulations. Therefore, his lack of awareness did not absolve him from administrative liability, although it was considered in meting out the penalty.
Main Doctrine
Clerks of court are prohibited from demanding or receiving commissioner's fees for the reception of evidence ex parte. This prohibition is clearly stated in the Manual for Clerks of Court, and court personnel are expected to be aware of and comply with such regulations. Ignorance of this rule does not absolve them from administrative liability, although mitigating factors such as first offense and length of service may be considered in determining the appropriate penalty.