ACELA P. LEONOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. VILMA B. DELFIN, CLERK OF COURT III, RESPONDENT.

Leonor versus Delfin

The Case

This is an administrative case in which Acela P. Leonor filed a letter complaint with the Supreme Court against Vilma B. Delfin, Clerk of Court III of the Municipal Trial Circuit Court, Branch Five, Bacolod City. The complainant asked that disciplinary action be taken against the respondent for her conduct in connection with a petition to correct the birth certificate of the complainant's son. The case matters because it fixes the standard of conduct for every employee of a court of justice: propriety, decorum, and, above all, being above suspicion. It also shows how the Court treats a court employee who enlists clients for her lawyer-husband and collects their fees herself.

Procedural History

The case began as a letter complaint dated 18 November 1996 addressed directly to the Supreme Court. The Court required the respondent to comment, and she filed her comment dated 21 April 1997. The Court then resolved to require the Office of the Court Administrator to docket the complaint as an administrative case and directed the respondent to manifest whether she was submitting the case for decision on the pleadings already filed. The respondent manifested in the affirmative, stating that she honestly believed her comment would be sufficient basis for resolution. The Court referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation. The Office of the Court Administrator submitted its findings and recommendation on 19 January 1999, recommending a fine of 2,000 pesos for gross misconduct. The case was then resolved by the Supreme Court itself, as an administrative matter within its original jurisdiction over court personnel.

Facts

On 22 August 1996, on the suggestion of a friend, the complainant went to the respondent's office at the Hall of Justice in Bacolod City. She presented the problem of errors in the birth certificate of her son, Roscoe Leonor Deles, Junior, whose papers for employment in Japan were being processed. The respondent assured her that the correction could be done within one and a half months, but it would be costly. When the complainant said she could not afford the amount mentioned, the charge was lowered to 6,000 pesos. The complainant tendered 2,000 pesos, for which the respondent gave a receipt, and assured her that the petition would be prepared and filed.

The complainant paid another 2,000 pesos on 27 August 1996, then 1,000 pesos on 16 September 1996, and the balance on 18 September 1996, each payment covered by the respondent's receipts. All the time, the complainant was under the impression that the petition was filed with and pending in court. On 15 October 1996, her son was advised that his visa was ready. The next day he went to the respondent for his corrected birth certificate, but no petition and no corrected certificate were given to him. On 17 October 1996, the complainant asked for a copy of the petition, and the respondent gave her a three-page petition that had no prayer. The complainant later learned that the petition was filed only after she left the respondent on that day. The family withdrew the petition and demanded a refund, but the respondent refunded only 3,635 pesos.

In her comment, the respondent denied soliciting the complainant's retainership, saying the complainant came on a referral. She claimed she had assessed the petition as not cognizable by the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, that she advised the complainant to get a lawyer, and that she asked her husband, a private law practitioner, to handle the petition to accommodate the complainant. She denied assuring a one-and-a-half-month timeframe, noting the publication requirements, and stressed her long years of service without any stigma on her name. She also noted that the son had withdrawn his petition on 30 October 1996.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross misconduct for enlisting clients on behalf of her lawyer-husband and acting as a collecting agent for him, even during official time.
• Whether or not the respondent committed deception in her dealings with the complainant, as would warrant a heavier penalty.
• Whether or not the recommended penalty of a fine of 2,000 pesos is proper.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a specific statutory provision; it rests on the settled standard of conduct for court employees, which the Court states as follows:

The conduct of each employee of a court of justice must, at all times, not only be characterized with propriety and decorum, but above all else, be above suspicion.

This standard governs the respondent's acts of enlisting clients for her husband and receiving their payments, and it is the measure by which her guilt is determined.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the findings and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator. It held that enlisting clients on behalf of her husband lawyer and acting as a collecting agent for him are not part of her duties as Branch Clerk of Court, and that when done during official time they are highly improper and constitute grave misconduct. The Court adopted the observation that the respondent should never have involved herself in such a transaction, since it creates the unsavory impression that she is taking advantage of her position to solicit cases and act as agent of a fixer for her lawyer-husband, and that receiving money directly from the complainant was highly improper even if the money was to be given to her husband.

On the second issue, the Court did not sustain the charge of deception. The Office of the Court Administrator found that every expense made by the respondent was properly receipted and the balance duly returned, and that the allegation that she led the complainant to believe the petition would be finished within one and a half months was not supported by evidence and should be disregarded.

On the third issue, the Court adopted the recommended penalty. The respondent was found guilty of gross misconduct and fined 2,000 pesos, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.

Doctrine

Every employee of a court of justice must, at all times, conduct himself or herself not only with propriety and decorum but, above all else, above suspicion. A clerk of court who enlists clients on behalf of her lawyer-husband and acts as a collecting agent for him, especially during official time, commits grave misconduct, because these acts are not part of her official duties and taint the integrity of the court. The employee need not have acted in bad faith; the impropriety lies in the act itself, which creates the impression of using public office to gather clients. Where the charge of deception is not supported by evidence, it is disregarded, and the penalty rests on the misconduct established.

Disposition

The respondent was found guilty of gross misconduct and fined 2,000 pesos, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the conduct of each employee of a court of justice must, at all times, not only be characterized with propriety and decorum, but above all else, be above suspicion. Examiners use this case to test the ethical duties of court personnel, particularly the prohibition on enlisting clients for a lawyer-spouse and collecting fees, and the rule that impropriety may be punished even without proof of bad faith.