Dutosme v. Caayon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Gaspar R. Dutosme charged Atty. Rey D. Caayon, Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Bogo, Cebu, with soliciting and receiving P2,500.00 for commissioner's and stenographer's fees without issuing an official receipt. Complainant alleged that he paid this amount on May 9, 2006, to secure a copy of a decision in LRC Case No. 61-0053, and received only a handwritten receipt. Procedural History: The complaint was filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The OCA required respondent Atty. Caayon to file a Comment. Respondent submitted his Comment, and complainant submitted a letter-reply. The parties were later required to manifest if they were willing to submit the matter on the pleadings, but neither complied. The OCA submitted a Report and Recommendation finding respondent liable for misconduct. The Petition: This case originated from an administrative complaint filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The core of the complaint was the alleged unlawful exaction of fees by the respondent, a Branch Clerk of Court. The respondent's defense was that the money was received in trust for the stenographer and that he issued a handwritten receipt in good faith. The OCA recommended suspension for one month without pay.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Rey D. Caayon, as Branch Clerk of Court, committed misconduct by soliciting and receiving P2,500.00 from a party litigant for commissioner's and stenographer's fees without issuing an official receipt. Whether respondent's explanation that the amount was received in trust for the stenographer and not for himself is a valid defense; and the appropriate penalty to be imposed, considering the findings.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Atty. Rey D. Caayon guilty of Simple Misconduct and suspended him from the service for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay, with a warning that repetition of a similar offense would be dealt with more severely. The Court affirmed the OCA's recommendation.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found respondent Atty. Rey D. Caayon guilty of Simple Misconduct. The evidence, particularly the handwritten acknowledgment receipt issued by respondent himself, clearly indicated the collection of P2,500.00 representing "commissioner's and stenographer's fees." This act violated Section B, Chapter II of the Manual for Clerks of Court, which explicitly prohibits Branch Clerks of Court from demanding and/or receiving commissioner's fees for the reception of evidence ex-parte. The Court emphasized that such exactions are prohibited and constitute misconduct. On Issue 2 and the Penalty: The Court rejected respondent's explanation that the P2,500.00 was received in trust for the stenographer, Belle Garrido, as payment for Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSNs). This claim was directly contradicted by the acknowledgment receipt respondent himself issued, which explicitly stated the amount was for "commissioner's and stenographer's fees." The Court found this explanation unconvincing, especially when compared to the clear tenor of the receipt. Furthermore, the Court noted that the certification issued by stenographers Garrido and Cuico, and Garrido's subsequent letter taking full responsibility, were self-serving attempts to exonerate their superior and were inconsistent with the more convincing evidence, namely, the acknowledgment receipt issued by Atty. Caayon. The Court also considered that the complainant's affidavit was executed under oath, while the respondent's comment was not, and found no motive for the complainant to fabricate charges. The Court imposed a penalty of suspension from the service for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay, consistent with Section 52(B), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service for a first offense of Misconduct. The Court also issued a stern warning that any repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.
Main Doctrine
A Branch Clerk of Court is guilty of misconduct for soliciting and receiving unauthorized fees from a party litigant, even if presented as commissioner's and stenographer's fees, and for failing to issue an official receipt. The issuance of a handwritten receipt acknowledging the collection of such fees, which are not legally demandable under the circumstances, constitutes evidence of misconduct, and the Clerk of Court's explanation that the amount was for stenographic fees to be remitted to another employee is unconvailing when contradicted by the receipt itself.