Clerks of Court Cannot Charge Fees for Receiving Ex Parte Evidence

The Supreme Court has clarified a recurring question in litigation practice: can clerks of court charge litigants for receiving evidence in ex parte proceedings? In Concepcion v. Hubilla (A.M. No. P-02-1594, February 19, 2003), the Court answered with a firm no, reprimanding a clerk of court who collected such fees even in good faith.

The ruling protects litigants from unauthorized charges and reminds court personnel that the reception of ex parte evidence is part of their official duties, not a private service to be compensated.

Background of the Case

The controversy began when Atty. Ignacio R. Concepcion wrote to the Court Administrator asking about the proper fees for clerks of court who receive evidence in ex parte proceedings. He had three pending cases—for cancellation of encumbrance, adoption, and issuance of a new owner's copy of title—where default orders had been issued and clerks of court were appointed as commissioners to receive evidence.

After the ex parte hearings, the clerks charged his clients "commissioner's fees" in varying amounts, without issuing receipts.

The Investigation

The Office of the Court Administrator investigated and identified two clerks of court who had received compensation: Atty. Ma. Cheryl L. Ceguera of RTC Quezon City and Atty. Ronaldo Hubilla of RTC Manila.

Atty. Ceguera admitted receiving amounts but claimed they were voluntarily given and were actually for transcripts of stenographic notes. The Court, however, lost administrative supervision over her because she had taken her oath as Assistant City Prosecutor.

Atty. Hubilla admitted charging P2,500.00 as commissioner's fee, explaining that the practice existed before he assumed his position. He said the amount was divided among the stenographer, interpreter, clerk in charge of civil cases, and himself. He claimed he was unaware the practice was prohibited.

The Defense of Good Faith

Atty. Hubilla raised several defenses. He said his previous employer, a government financing institution, had long paid such fees for ex parte hearings, and the Commission on Audit accepted these payments citing Section 13, Rule 32 of the Revised Rules of Court on compensation of commissioners.

He argued he acted in good faith, readily issued a receipt when required, never promised preferential treatment, and returned the fee before the Court's resolution. He also noted he was new to the position and had twelve years of clean government service.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court rejected these defenses. The Court cited the Manual for Clerks of Court, which explicitly states that while a Branch Clerk of Court may receive evidence ex parte when directed by the judge, no branch clerk of court shall demand or receive commissioner's fees for reception of evidence ex parte.

The Court found that Atty. Hubilla was remiss in failing to familiarize himself with the functions of his office, particularly its limitations and prohibitions. The fact that he was new or that the practice was widespread did not excuse the violation.

However, considering that this was his first offense in twelve years of government service, the Court imposed the penalty of reprimand rather than a heavier sanction.

Practical Takeaways

• Clerks of court cannot charge for ex parte evidence reception. Receiving evidence ex parte when designated by the judge is an official function covered by their salary, not a service for which they may collect fees.

• Section 13, Rule 32 does not apply to clerks of court. That provision allows courts to compensate commissioners, but it does not authorize clerks of court to demand or receive such fees for ex parte proceedings.

• Good faith is not a complete defense. While it may mitigate the penalty, ignorance of the rules does not absolve court personnel of administrative liability.

• Litigants should not pay unauthorized fees. If a clerk of court demands compensation for receiving ex parte evidence, the litigant may report the matter to the Court Administrator.

• Receipts do not legitimize the charge. Issuing a receipt for an unauthorized fee does not make the collection lawful; it merely documents the violation.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.