490 Phil. 460
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
1) Falsification of daily time records;Respondent falsified her daily time records (DTR). The entries therein of the time of her arrival in the office and departure therefrom vary from her entries in the logbook. To support her charge, complainant submitted xerox copies of respondent’s DTR and the logbook showing such variance, thus:
2) Dishonesty;
3) Demanding or receiving commissioner’s fee for reception of evidence ex-parte;
4) Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service;
5) Issuing certified true copies of warrant of arrest without payment of the corresponding fees; and
6) Discourtesy in the conduct of official business.
Complainant’s allegations in her complaint are:
Date | Daily Time Record | Office Log Book |
April 6, 1998 | 7:20 sick leave | 7:20-12:00 12:30-4:30 |
May 14, 1998 | 7:35-12:00 12:30-4:30 | 7:35-12:00 12:00-2:30 |
May 28, 1998 | 7:50-12:00 12:30 | 7:35-12:00 12:00-2:30 |
June 18, 1998 | 7:55-12:00 12:30-4:00 | 7:55-12:00 12:30-4:30 |
June 26, 1998 | 8:00-12:00 halfday (sic) | 8:00-12:00 12:30-4:30 |
August 6,1998 | 8:00-4:00 | 8:00-12:00 12:30-4:30 |
August 12,1998 | 7:15-12:00 12:30-4:30 | 7:15-12:00 12:30-4:00 |
Date | Office Log Book | Daily Time Record |
April 6, 1998 | 7:20 sick leave | 7:20-12:00 12:30-4:30 |
May 14, 1998 | 7:35-12:00 12:30-2:00[7] | 7:35-12:00 12:00-2:30 |
May 28, 1998 | 7:50-12:00 12:30 | 7:35-12:00 12:00-4:30 |
June 18, 1998 | 7:55-12:00 12:30-4:00 | 7:55-12:00 12:30-4:30 |
June 26, 1998 | 8:00-12:00 halfday (sic) | 8:00-12:00 12:30-4:30 |
August 6,1998 | 8:00-4:00 | 8:00-12:00 12:30-4:30 |
August 12,1998 | 7:15-12:00 12:30-4:30 | 7:15-12(sic)12:30-4:30 |
“Evaluation and Recommendation of this OfficeWe sustain DCA Lock’s Evaluation and Recommendation, except the suggested penalty.
Except for the charge of dishonesty and misconduct for demanding & collecting commissioner’s fee, this Office finds the foregoing findings and recommendation to be well-taken. Records show that complainant failed to prove by substantial evidence to hold respondent administratively liable. As found by the investigating judge, the other charges were not proven.
After a thorough evaluation of the voluminous records of this case inclusive of the transcript of stenographic notes, exhibits and pleadings filed by complainant and respondent, this Office departs from the findings of the investigating judge that the respondent is guilty of dishonesty for demanding and collecting commissioner’s fee.
This Office believes that respondent did not commit dishonesty when she demanded commissioner’s fee from the Unifunds. As shown by the evidence established by the complainant, it shows that respondent is actually guilty of Violation of the Manual for Clerks of Court, specifically under the following provisions: (a) Section B, Chapter II (p. 36), which states that: ‘No Branch Clerk of Court shall demand and/or receive commissioner’s fees for reception of evidence ex-parte;' and (b) Section D.7, Chapter IV(p. 74), which states that: ‘The Court shall allow the commissioner, other than an employee of the Court, such reasonable compensation as the circumstances of the case warrant to be taxed as costs against the defeated party, or apportioned, as justice requires.’ [underscoring ours]. For all intents and purposes, respondent is in reality collecting commissioner’s fee when she demanded payment from Unifunds through messenger Billy Ranas and Documentation Officer Melinda De Guzman even though she issued a receipt in the guise of collecting payment for transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) in behalf of Court Stenographer Cueto. This Office surmised that when respondent gave Court Stenographer Judith Cueto the sum of P200.00 pesos, she is merely giving the latter her share for transcribing the stenographic notes of the case of Unifunds. Clearly, the intent or motive to gain out of Cueto’s collectibles for the payment of TSN is totally absent. In fact, it was established during the investigation that respondent collected the sum of P500.00 in the presence of the other staff and especially Court Stenographer Judith Cueto. The latter, upon receipt of the P200.00 pesos, did not object or complain. Presumably, respondent and Court Stenographer had a previous understanding or some sort of an ‘agreement’ to this kind of arrangement, which they call it a ‘package deal’ when conducting ex-parte hearing. As testified by Court Stenographer Cueto, the normal fee for ex-parte hearing, as far as their court is concerned, is P1,500.00 pesos, with the following sharing scheme: P1,000.00 goes to the Branch Clerk, then PP500.00 goes to the Court Stenographer. Were it not for this kind of arrangement, respondent could have pocketed everything instead of giving part of it to Cueto. Since respondent was able to collect PP500.00 pesos only, she gave Cueto the P200.00 and retained for herself the P300.00 pesos. Thus, the absence of an intent or motive to gain.
Respondent’s defense that it was Presiding Judge Marquez who conducted the ex-parte hearing as evidenced by the Transcript of Stenographic Notes dated 16 July 1998 is of no consequence. Regardless of whether or not respondent was authorized by the presiding judge is beside the point. The above-cited provisions in the said Manual is very clear that a Branch Clerk is prohibited to demand commissioner’s fee.
Besides, Section 9, Rule 30, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure is very specific that: ‘x x x in default or ex-parte hearings, and in any case where the parties agree in writing, the court may delegate the reception of evidence to its clerk of court who is a member of the bar. x x x.’ As a Branch Clerk of Court who is a non-lawyer, she ought to know that under the said rule it is only a member of the bar who is authorized to receive evidence ex-parte. Records reveal that there is no order of the presiding judge showing that she was authorized to act as such. Respondent even committed further blunder when, aware of the existing rules and even without prior authority from the judge, she gave the appearance to the parties concerned that she is legally collecting commissioner’s fee. This is based from the very words she uttered to Witness-Documentation Officer Melinda De Guzman when she said, ‘Ang hinihingi naman namin is legal eh. Ang illegal ay yung pagcha-charge nyo ng mataas na interest sa mga kliyente ninyo’ in the presence of the rest of the staff including the complainant and witness Cueto.
To curb the appalling practice of the Branch Clerks of Court, then Acting Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño issued Circular No. 50-2001 dated 17 August 2001, which states: ‘Pursuant to the Resolution of 27 June 2001 in A.M. No. 01-4-222-RTC, Clerks of Court are not authorized to collect compensation for services rendered as commissioners in ex-parte proceedings.’
In the case of RTC Makati Movement Against Graft and Corruption versus Atty. Inocencio E. Dumlao, Acting Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Valenzuela, Metro Manila (A.M. No. P-93-800, 09 August 1995), it was held that:‘On the issue of Respondent’s demanding and receiving so-called ‘commissioner’s fees,’ we find the charges against Respondent meritorious. The Manual for Clerks of Court, which in essence is the ‘Bible for Clerks of Courts,’ specifically provides that:Respondent Inocencio E. Dumlao, who was found guilty of grave misconduct and gross ignorance of the duties pertaining to his office and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for the commission of the following acts: (a) demanding and collecting commissioner’s fees; (b) lending money at usurious rates of interest; (c) ignorance of the existing contents of the Manual for Clerks of Court; and (d) remiss in his duties in the preparation of monthly report of cases, was dismissed from the service.
“No Branch Clerk of Court shall demand and/or receive commissioner’s fee for reception of evidence ex-parte.
... The Court shall allow the commissioner, other than an employee of the court, such reasonable compensation as the circumstances of the case warrant. (Italics ours).’
In the present case, the facts do not warrant respondent’s dismissal from the service considering that out of the seven (7) charges, complainant was able to prove only one (1) of the charges.
The recommended penalty of the investigating judge which is ‘suspension from the service for one (1) year without pay and be disqualified for promotion or any increase in salary during the period she is under suspension,’ is too stiff to the administrative offense committed by the respondent. Records in the Docket & Clearance Division, Legal Office, OCA show that this is the first time that respondent was administratively charged after serving the judiciary for ten (10) years from January 1988 when she started as Legal Researcher in RTC, Morong, Rizal up to the time the instant case was filed sometime January 1999. Moreover, there is nothing in the record, which shows that respondent had committed a similar act of collecting commissioner’s fee in the past. In fact, Presiding Judge Marquez, who appeared during the investigation, testified that she is always the one who conducts hearing of ex-parte reception of evidence. Clearly, the present complaint should be treated as an isolated incident. Thus, this Office believes that a lesser penalty, which is commensurate under the circumstances of this case, should be imposed upon the respondent.
In view thereof, this Office recommends that a FINE be imposed upon the respondent in the sum of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) and that she is SEVERELY REPRIMANDED with WARNING that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent should also be REMINDED to strictly follow Section 9, Rule 30, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Supreme Court Circular No. 50-2001 dated 17 August 2001, Section B, Chapter II (p. 36), Section D.7, Chapter IV (p. 74) of the Manual for Clerks of Court to avoid similar violations.
Premises considered, it is most respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court the following recommendations:
(a) That the respondent be EXONERATED in the following charges:
(1) Falsification in the accomplishment of Daily Time Record (DTR);
(2) Dishonesty for collection commissioner’s fee;
(3) Conduct unbecoming of a public official, which is further re-classified as follows:(1) Favoring a celebrity when respondent allowed Lily Monteverde to post a cash bond without personal appearance in court;
(2) Issuing certified true copies of a warrant of arrest without requiring requesting party to pay legal fees;
(3) Being Discourteous and disrespectful in the conduct of official business in court, as follows:(a) Unfair and unreasonable closing of the attendance logbook before the 30-minute grace period;(b) That the respondent be found guilty of Gross Violation of Section B, Chapter II (p. 36), Section D.7, Chapter IV (p. 74) of the Manual for Clerks of Court when she demanded and collected commissioner’s fee. And that respondent be imposed a FINE in the sum of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) and SEVERELY REPRIMANDED for the said violation with a WARNING that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with more severely. Respondent should also be REMINDED to strictly follow Section 9, Rule 30, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure and Supreme Court Circular No. 50-2001 dated 17 August 2001, Section B, Chapter II (p. 36), Section D.7, Chapter IV (p. 74) of the Manual for Clerks of Court to avoid similar violations.”
(b) Unfair and unreasonable notation in the logbook that the complainant reported in the office ‘half-day’ on 20 August 1998;
(c) Humiliating lawyers and litigants;
(d) Insulting complainant in front of the lawyers in the Ozone case; and
(e) Forcing complainant and utility worker Danilo De la Cruz to resign from the service.
“The Manual for Clerks of Courts, which in essence is the ‘Bible for Clerks of Courts,’ specifically provides that ‘No Branch Clerk of Court shall demand and/or receive commissioner’s fees for reception of evidence ex parte. The court shall allow the commissioner, other than an employee of the court, such reasonable compensation as the circumstances of the case warrant.’”Respondent does not meet the strict judicial standard when she demanded and collected commissioner’s fee.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Branch Clerk of Court 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 is hereby 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. Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the service records of respondent Saturnina Alvarez-Edad.“RULE IV – PENALTIES
Section 52. Classification of Offenses. – Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
x x x
B. The following are less grave offenses with the corresponding penalties:
x x x
2. Simple Misconduct
1st Offense – Suspension
1 mo. 1 day to 6 mos.
2nd Offense – Dismissal
x x x.”