GASPAR R. DUTOSME, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. REY D. CAAYON, RESPONDENT.

Dutosme versus Caayon

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Gaspar Dutosme charged Attorney Rey Caayon, the Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Bogo, Cebu, with soliciting and receiving money from a party litigant without issuing an official receipt. The complainant alleged that the clerk demanded and collected 2,500 pesos as commissioner's and stenographer's fees before releasing a copy of a decision. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct for clerks of court over the collection of fees, and because it shows how the Supreme Court weighs a sworn complaint against a clerk's unsworn denial and the self-serving certifications of his subordinates.

Procedural History

The matter began as an administrative complaint filed with the Office of the Court Administrator through an affidavit dated August 2, 2006. The Office of the Court Administrator required the respondent to file his comment, which he did. The Court later required the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the matter on the pleadings, but neither party complied. The Office of the Court Administrator then submitted its report and recommendation, finding the respondent liable for misconduct and recommending suspension from the service for one month without pay, with a warning. The case reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court resolved it in a decision promulgated on July 31, 2009.

Facts

On May 9, 2006, Gaspar Dutosme went to Branch 61 of the Regional Trial Court of Bogo, Cebu to secure a copy of a decision in a land registration case. He was able to obtain the copy, but only after the respondent, Attorney Rey Caayon, asked for and received 2,500 pesos, which the respondent described as commissioner's and stenographer's fees. The respondent gave a handwritten receipt for the amount but did not issue an official receipt.

In his comment, the respondent gave a different account. He said that the complainant was looking for Belle Garrido, the stenographer who recorded the proceedings, and that since she was unavailable, he furnished the complainant a copy of the decision. The complainant then tendered a handful of money with the request that it be given to the stenographer. Although he refused at first, the respondent said he accepted the money in good faith and prepared the handwritten receipt. He claimed that on his instruction the complainant returned later so that the stenographer could issue a receipt, but the complainant said he had already sent the handwritten receipt to his office in Cebu City. To support his account, the respondent attached a certification from two court stenographers stating that they received the 2,500 pesos from him as payment for the transcripts in the same case.

The complainant, in his reply, insisted that the amount was received as a commissioner's fee. The Office of the Court Administrator found that the acknowledgment receipt itself stated that the amount was for the commissioner's fee and the transcript of stenographic notes, and that the respondent's unsworn comment could not outweigh the complainant's sworn affidavit. It also found the certification of the stenographers to be self-serving and an attempt to exonerate their superior.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent Branch Clerk of Court is administratively liable for demanding and receiving commissioner's fees from a party litigant in an ex parte proceeding.
• Whether or not the respondent's denial and the supporting certifications of the court stenographers can overcome the complainant's sworn affidavit and the handwritten acknowledgment receipt.
• Whether or not the penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay is proper for a first offense of simple misconduct.

Applicable Provisions

Section B, Chapter II of the Manual for Clerks of Court provides:

No Branch Clerk of Court shall demand and/or receive commissioner's fees for the reception of evidence ex-parte.

This provision is the core prohibition the respondent violated, because he collected an amount that the receipt itself described as a commissioner's fee.

Section 52(B), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides:

The penalty of suspension from one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for a first offense of Misconduct.

This provision supplies the range of the penalty and confirms that suspension is the correct sanction for a first offense of misconduct.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found the respondent administratively liable. His claim that he received the 2,500 pesos in trust for the stenographer as stenographic fees is belied by the written acknowledgment receipt he himself issued, which stated that the amount was for commissioner's and stenographer's fees. The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Nieva versus Alvarez-Edad, where a clerk of court was found guilty of demanding and receiving a commissioner's fee in violation of the Manual for Clerks of Court, and where the clerk had issued a receipt in the guise of collecting payment for transcripts when part of the amount was actually due as a commissioner's fee. The Court referred to the Manual as the Bible for Clerks of Court.

On the second issue, the Court upheld the evaluation of the Office of the Court Administrator. The respondent's comment could not be given more weight than the complainant's affidavit, since the comment was not executed under oath while the affidavit was, and there was no showing of any motive on the complainant's part to fabricate the charges. The certification of the two stenographers and the later letter of one of them taking full responsibility for the amount were but attempts to exonerate their superior, and were self-serving and inconsistent with the tenor of the more convincing evidence, which was the acknowledgment receipt issued by the respondent himself.

On the third issue, the Court held that the penalty of suspension for one month and one day without pay was in order, considering that this appeared to be the respondent's first offense.

Doctrine

A branch clerk of court may not demand or receive commissioner's fees for the reception of evidence in an ex parte proceeding. The Manual for Clerks of Court is the governing standard for the conduct of clerks, and a receipt issued in the guise of collecting stenographic fees will not shield a clerk where the receipt itself shows that part of the amount was a commissioner's fee. In administrative proceedings, a sworn affidavit carries more weight than an unsworn comment, and certifications issued by subordinates to exonerate their superior are self-serving and cannot prevail over the documentary evidence. Simple misconduct committed for the first time is punishable by suspension from one month and one day to six months, and the Court imposed the minimum of that range.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent Branch Clerk of Court guilty of simple misconduct and suspended him from the service for one month and one day without pay, with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar offense would be dealt with more severely, and ordered that a copy of the resolution be attached to his service record.

Remember This

The single line to memorize is that no branch clerk of court shall demand or receive commissioner's fees for the reception of evidence ex parte, and a receipt that mislabels the collection will not save him. Examiners use this case to test the hierarchy of evidence in administrative proceedings, where a sworn complaint and the clerk's own receipt defeat an unsworn denial and self-serving certifications, and to test the penalty for a first offense of simple misconduct.