Villanueva v. Saguyod
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jose S. Villanueva filed a complaint against Atty. Paulino I. Saguyod, Clerk of Court VI of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Paniqui, Tarlac, for alleged violations of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and Section 4(e) of Republic Act No. 6713. The complaint stemmed from an incident where Villanueva, acting on instructions from his employer Atty. Lavezares Leomo, sought a certified photocopy of a Petition related to a land case. Villanueva alleged that Saguyod demanded a Special Power of Attorney, refused the request based on a text message, and subsequently engaged in a heated argument, including a physical challenge. Villanueva also claimed Saguyod's wife, who was present in the Clerk of Court's office, interfered and relayed information that the copy would not be provided. Furthermore, Villanueva asserted that Saguyod's actions were motivated by vengeance due to an unpaid balance for a Certificate of Finality issued in another land case, alleging that Saguyod had previously demanded an excessive amount for this service. Procedural History: The administrative complaint was initially referred by the Supreme Court to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Paniqui, Tarlac, for investigation. The first investigating judge recommended dismissal for lack of merit. However, the Supreme Court nullified this report due to the investigating judge's preventive suspension and referred the case to another Acting Presiding Judge for a new investigation. This second investigation also recommended dismissal. Subsequently, the Supreme Court referred the report to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation. The OCA recommended that the case be docketed as a regular administrative matter and that respondent be admonished for violations of the Code of Conduct and RA 6713, and suspended for one month and one day for simple misconduct related to demanding fees. The Petition: This case reached the Supreme Court for resolution of the issues concerning whether the respondent indirectly demanded and received P3,000.00 for a Certificate of Finality, whether his receipt of commissioner's fees was legal, whether he provided prompt and courteous service when a photocopy was requested, and whether his wife held office in the Clerk of Court's premises. The Supreme Court, in its decision, found that the respondent, as a court employee, was not authorized to demand or receive commissioner's fees for the reception of evidence ex parte, and that the amount demanded exceeded the prescribed fee. Consequently, the respondent was suspended for three months for simple misconduct. Additionally, he was admonished and sternly warned for violating the Code of Conduct and RA 6713 due to his discourteous conduct towards the complainant during the request for a photocopy, while the allegation regarding his wife using the office was not substantiated by evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Paulino I. Saguyod indirectly demanded and received P3,000.00 from complainant for the issuance of the Certificate of Finality and Whether respondent's receipt of commissioner's fee for reception of evidence is legal and proper. Whether respondent extended prompt and courteous service to complainant when the latter requested a photocopy of a pleading. Whether the wife of respondent holds office in the Office of the Clerk of Court.
Ruling
Respondent Atty. Paulino I. Saguyod is hereby SUSPENDED from the service for a period of three (3) months for SIMPLE MISCONDUCT, for demanding from complainant the amount of P3,000.00 as commissioner’s fee and appearance fee, in Land Case Nos. 021-P06 and 020-P06. Respondent is likewise ADMONISHED for Violating the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and of Section 4(e), Republic Act No. 6713, and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely in the future.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Atty. Paulino I. Saguyod indirectly demanded and received P3,000.00 from complainant for the issuance of the Certificate of Finality and Whether respondent's receipt of commissioner's fee for reception of evidence is legal and proper: The Court disagreed with the respondent's claim that the P3,000.00 demanded was for appearance and commissioner's fees. Clerks of court are explicitly prohibited from demanding or receiving commissioner's fees when directed by a judge to receive evidence ex parte, as per Chapter VI, Section D, par. 1.2.12 of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court. Only P500.00 may be collected under Section 21(e), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, a commissioner entitled to compensation must not be an employee of the court, and their fees are taxed as costs. As a court employee, respondent had no authority to demand or receive such fees. Therefore, the OCA correctly held the respondent liable for simple misconduct, punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for a first offense. Considering it was a first infraction, a penalty of three months suspension was deemed sufficient. On Whether respondent extended prompt and courteous service to complainant when the latter requested a photocopy of a pleading: The Court found that while the respondent's refusal to provide the photocopy based on a text message was proper to protect court records, his subsequent conduct was inappropriate. The complainant's request was informal, lacking a formal letter of request from Atty. Leomo, which is the court's policy for providing documents. However, the respondent, a court officer, should have maintained courtesy and self-restraint, as mandated by Republic Act No. 6713. Despite the complainant's potentially rude behavior, the respondent's heated exchange, challenge to a fistfight, and use of vulgar language were unbecoming of a court employee. Thus, the respondent was admonished and warned to be more courteous in his dealings with the public. On Whether the wife of respondent holds office in the Office of the Clerk of Court: The Court found no evidence to support the complainant's allegation that the respondent's wife held office in the Clerk of Court's office. The respondent's explanation that his wife merely dropped by to remind him to fetch their daughter from school was not repudiated by the complainant. While the wife's presence and involvement in facilitating real estate transactions were noted, the Court concluded that there was insufficient proof to establish that she used the Clerk of Court's office as her own office or that this constituted a violation of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel.
Main Doctrine
Clerks of court are strictly prohibited from demanding or receiving commissioner's fees for the reception of evidence ex parte, as this role is reserved for individuals not employed by the court and whose compensation is taxed as costs. Furthermore, all court personnel are bound by the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officers and Employees (R.A. 6713) to provide prompt, courteous, and adequate service to the public, and to conduct themselves with civility and self-restraint, even when faced with difficult or confrontational individuals, to uphold public trust in the judiciary.