The Supreme Court in Gaspar R. Dutosme v. Atty. Rey D. Caayon addressed the misconduct of a Branch Clerk of Court who solicited and received unauthorized fees. The Court found Atty. Caayon guilty of simple misconduct for collecting commissioner’s and stenographer’s fees without issuing an official receipt, violating the Manual for Clerks of Court. This ruling underscores the importance of integrity and adherence to regulations within the judicial system, ensuring that court personnel do not exploit their positions for personal gain. The decision serves as a stern warning against such practices, reinforcing accountability and ethical conduct in the administration of justice.

When a Clerk’s ‘Good Faith’ Becomes a Breach of Trust

The case revolves around a complaint filed by Gaspar R. Dutosme against Atty. Rey D. Caayon, a Branch Clerk of Court, alleging that Atty. Caayon solicited and received P2,500 for commissioner’s and stenographer’s fees without issuing an official receipt. Dutosme needed a copy of a decision from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and claimed that he secured it only after paying the requested amount. The core legal question is whether Atty. Caayon’s actions constituted misconduct and violated the established rules governing the conduct of court personnel.

Atty. Caayon defended himself by stating that Dutosme offered the money to be given to Belle Garrido, the stenographer, and that he only accepted it in good faith after Dutosme insisted. He also claimed that he instructed Dutosme to return later so Belle could issue a receipt. However, the evidence presented, particularly the handwritten receipt issued by Atty. Caayon, indicated that the amount was for “commissioner’s and stenographer’s fees.” This directly contradicted Atty. Caayon’s claim that he was merely holding the money in trust for the stenographer.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the case and found Atty. Caayon responsible for exacting an amount from a party litigant. The OCA cited Section B, Chapter II of the Manual for Clerks of Court, which explicitly states:

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

This provision underscores the prohibition against clerks of court from personally collecting commissioner’s fees, especially in ex-parte proceedings.

The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA’s evaluation, emphasizing that Atty. Caayon’s explanation was inconsistent with the written acknowledgment receipt he issued. The Court gave more weight to Dutosme’s sworn affidavit, noting the absence of any apparent motive to fabricate charges against Atty. Caayon. The certification from the stenographers, stating that they received the amount from Atty. Caayon, was deemed self-serving and an attempt to exonerate their superior. The Court found the acknowledgment receipt issued by Atty. Caayon to be the more convincing evidence.

Building on this principle, the Court cited the case of Nieva v. Alvarez-Edad, where a Clerk of Court was also found guilty of demanding/receiving commissioner’s fee in violation of the Manual for Clerks of Court. In that case, the Court affirmed the OCA’s finding that the clerk issued a receipt in the guise of collecting payment for TSN when part of the amount was actually due as commissioner’s fee. This established a precedent, reinforcing the importance of strictly adhering to the guidelines set forth in the Manual for Clerks of Court, which the Court referred to as the “Bible for Clerks of Court.” This shows that strict adherence to the Manual is needed for court personnel.

The Supreme Court then turned to the appropriate penalty. Section 52(B), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service prescribes a penalty of suspension from one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for a first offense of Misconduct. Considering this was Atty. Caayon’s first offense, the Court ordered his suspension from service for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay, with a warning that any similar offense would be dealt with more severely.

This case underscores the critical role that court personnel play in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system. Clerks of court, as essential administrative officers, must adhere to the highest ethical standards. Their actions directly impact public trust and confidence in the judiciary. The unauthorized collection of fees, even if purportedly done in good faith, undermines the fairness and impartiality that the judicial system strives to uphold. The Court’s decision serves as a reminder that any deviation from these standards will be met with appropriate disciplinary action.

Furthermore, the decision highlights the importance of issuing official receipts for all transactions involving court fees. This practice ensures transparency and accountability, preventing any potential misuse or misappropriation of funds. The failure to issue an official receipt raises serious concerns about the clerk’s intentions and the integrity of the transaction. It is a fundamental requirement for maintaining proper financial records and safeguarding public funds. By emphasizing this requirement, the Court reinforces the need for meticulous record-keeping and adherence to established procedures.

This ruling has significant practical implications for both court personnel and the public. For court personnel, it serves as a clear and unequivocal warning against engaging in any form of unauthorized fee collection. It reinforces the importance of understanding and complying with the provisions of the Manual for Clerks of Court and other relevant regulations. For the public, it provides assurance that the courts are committed to holding their personnel accountable for any misconduct and that appropriate disciplinary measures will be taken to address such violations. This fosters greater trust and confidence in the integrity of the judicial system.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Atty. Caayon, as Branch Clerk of Court, committed misconduct by soliciting and receiving unauthorized fees from a litigant.
What did Atty. Caayon allegedly do?	Atty. Caayon allegedly solicited and received P2,500 for commissioner’s and stenographer’s fees without issuing an official receipt.
What was Atty. Caayon’s defense?	Atty. Caayon claimed he received the money in good faith to be given to the stenographer, Belle Garrido, and that he asked the complainant to return for an official receipt.
What did the OCA recommend?	The OCA recommended that Atty. Caayon be found liable for misconduct and suspended from service for one (1) month without pay.
What did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court found Atty. Caayon guilty of simple misconduct and suspended him from service for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay.
What is the significance of the Manual for Clerks of Court in this case?	The Manual for Clerks of Court prohibits clerks from demanding or receiving commissioner’s fees for ex-parte proceedings, which Atty. Caayon violated.
What was the basis for the Court’s decision?	The Court based its decision on the acknowledgment receipt issued by Atty. Caayon and the complainant’s sworn affidavit, which contradicted Atty. Caayon’s claims.
What is the penalty for misconduct in this case?	Atty. Caayon was suspended from service for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay, with a warning against future similar offenses.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Gaspar R. Dutosme v. Atty. Rey D. Caayon reaffirms the importance of ethical conduct and adherence to regulations within the judicial system. By holding court personnel accountable for misconduct, the Court ensures the integrity and fairness of the administration of justice. This case serves as a reminder that public trust is paramount and that any breach of that trust will be met with appropriate disciplinary action.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Gaspar R. Dutosme v. Atty. Rey D. Caayon, A.M. No. P-08-2578, July 31, 2009