Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83402:57575&catid=1587&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 03:56:49+00:00

Document:
JOSE S. VILLANUEVA, Complainant, v. ATTY. PAULINO I. SAGUYOD, CLERK OF COURT VI, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 6, PANIQUI, TARLAC, Respondent.
This resolves the Complaint1 dated March 23, 2007 filed by Jose S. Villanueva against Atty. Paulino I. Saguyod, Clerk of Court VI, Branch 67, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Paniqui, Tarlac charging the latter with violations of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and of Section 4 (e), Republic Act (RA) No. 6713, otherwise known as the Code of Ethics for Public Officials and Employees.
The facts, as found by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), follow.
x x x on February 20, 2007, he received a text message from Atty. Lavezares Leomo, his employer, instructing him to get a certified photocopy of a Petition relative to Land Case No. 051-06 entitled “Petition for the Issuance of a Second Owner’s Duplicate Copy of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) of Arnel D. Morales.” On or about 8:45 in the morning of that same day, Ms. Rosalie D. Sarsagat, the assigned stenographer of the same court, advised him to return after thirty minutes because the custodian of the records is not yet around. Immediately following the lapse of that period, complainant was informed that the records being requested were in the custody of respondent but must talk to his wife, Mrs. Judith Saguyod, in order to secure the requested pleading. Complainant found out that respondent’s wife likewise holds office in the room of respondent although she is not an employee of the said court.
Such acts of respondent contravened Section 4(e) of R.A. 6713 and Section 2, Canon IV of the New Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. Complainant also claims that respondent violated Section 4, Canon I of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel when he allowed his wife to use the Office of the Clerk of Court as the office of her real estate transaction. Complainant posits that in this scenario a conflict might arise between respondent’s official duty and his wife’s business dealings.
According to the guard on duty, complainant continued to hurl threatening words against him even when he was already outside the building. The guard reported the matter to him, hence, he went outside to confront [the] complainant. At that moment, complainant said to him, “Dayo ka lang dito sa Paniqui” to which respondent Clerk of Court replied, “E ano ngayon kung taga-Paniqui ka at taga-Victoria ako?” Nonetheless, to avoid any untoward incident, he returned to his office.
Respondent denies that his wife holds office in the Office of the Clerk of Court. He points out that complainant has no evidence to prove such charge. He explains that on that day, his wife had just passed by his office to tell him to fetch their seven-year old daughter from school. Although he admits that once in a while, his wife would drop by his office to see and talk to him – an act that is not prohibited by any law, rules or regulations. Respondent also clarifies that his wife is not a real estate agent but only a person who facilitates the processing and transfer of certificates of title of subdivision lots. Hence, his wife has nothing to do with his refusal to give complainant a copy of the petition.
Respondent explains that Land Case No. 021-06 and 022-06 were approved only after nine months from the time they were filed because then Judge Cesar M. Sotero retired on (sic) February 2006, while Judge Arsenio P. Adriano who succeeded him assumed his office as Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 63, Tarlac City only on (sic) September 2006. Moreover, complainant was also required by the court to present other supporting documents like the original copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale in his Petition.
In a Resolution3 dated October 1, 2007, the Court referred the instant administrative complaint to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Paniqui, Tarlac for investigation, report and recommendation. Forthwith, the records of the case were transmitted to Executive Judge Liberty O. Castañeda in a letter4 dated November 9, 2007.
In her Reports and Findings5 dated March 26, 2011, Judge Castañeda recommended that the complaint against respondent be dismissed for lack of merit.
In his Report8 dated February 7, 2012, Judge Yumul recommended that the case be dismissed.
In a Resolution 9dated June 18, 2012, the Court referred said Report to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.
The first and second issues shall be discussed jointly as they are interrelated.
In his Comment, respondent claimed that he should be exonerated from the charges against him since the amount he demanded from complainant for the release of the Certificate of Finality relative to Land Case Nos. 021-P06 and 020-P06 covers the appearance fee required under pertinent circulars of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the commissioner’s fee under Section 21(e), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.
Here, it appears that respondent went beyond his responsibilities when he demanded the payment of P3,000.00 from complainant. Such act violates Chapter VI, Section D, par. 1.2.12 of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court which states that branch clerks of court who are directed by the judge to receive evidence ex parte shall not demand and/or receive commissioner’s fees. In fact, only the amount of P500.00 may be collected pursuant to Section 21(e), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.
Time and again, we have held that clerks of court are not authorized to demand and/or receive commissioner’s fees for reception of evidence ex parte.14 To be entitled to reasonable compensation, a commissioner must not be an employee of the court. Section D (7), Chapter IV of the Manual for Clerks of Court provides 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.”15 Accordingly, respondent, as a court employee, has no authority to demand or receive any commissioner’s fee.
Thus, the OCA aptly held that, as such, respondent should be held liable for simple misconduct which is punishable under Section 52(B), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, with a penalty of suspension from one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for a first offense of misconduct. Considering that this is respondent’s first infraction, the penalty of three (3) months would suffice.
Records showed that complainant went to Branch 67, RTC, [Paniqui], Tarlac on February 20, 2007, with only a text message from Atty. Lavezares Leomo, to secure a certified photocopy of a petition relative to Land Case No. 051-06. Respondent advised complainant to secure a letter request from Atty. Leomo because it was the policy of the court to provide court documents only to parties to the case and their counsel or duly authorized representatives. The text message from Atty. Leomo was not the official request required by the court and respondent’s refusal to provide complainant the requested documents was proper to protect the integrity of court records. Court records are public documents and access to these documents shall be afforded the citizens, subject to certain limitations provided by law.
It must be emphasized that Atty. Leomo was provided with the requested documents when he personally went to the court and explained that he needed a copy of the Petition in Land Case No. 051-06, including its annexes, particularly the Affidavit of Loss and the Finality of the Decision because his client, Nelita S. Navarro, intended to file an opposition to the petition. This only showed that upon formal request, respondent will not hesitate to provide court documents.
From the foregoing, it is obvious that complainant and respondent had a heated argument on February 20, 2007. Thus, although complainant’s actions are reprehensible, it was equally inappropriate for respondent to have handled the situation that way considering that he is a court officer.
Regrettably, although respondent’s reaction was understandable given the circumstances, he should have still conducted himself in a manner befitting an officer of the court. For this, respondent is admonished and warned to be more courteous in his dealings with the public.
As to the fourth issue, no evidence was presented to prove that respondent’s wife holds office at the Office of the Clerk of Court. Per Judge Yumul’s findings, respondent’s claim that his wife only dropped by his office to remind him to fetch their daughter from school was not even repudiated by complainant.
In view of the foregoing, we agree with the OCA’s findings and recommendations.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, respondent 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.
13 Nieva v. Alvarez-Edad, 490 Phil. 460, 472 (2005).
14Concepcion v. Hubilla, 445 Phil. 689, 693 (2003).
15Nieva v. Alvarez-Edad, supra note 13, at 473.
17Opeña v. Luna, 514 Phil. 345, 350 (2005).
18Perez v. Cunting, 436 Phil. 618, 625 (2002).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.