Court Employee Disciplined for Improper Fee Demands and Unprofessional Behavior

The Supreme Court has reminded all court personnel that demanding unauthorized fees and behaving discourteously toward the public are serious offenses that will not be tolerated. In Villanueva v. Saguyod (A.M. No. P-13-3102, September 8, 2014), the Court suspended a clerk of court for three months for simple misconduct and admonished him for violating the ethical standards expected of public officers. The case serves as a clear warning about the limits of a court employee's authority and the importance of maintaining professionalism at all times.

The Facts of the Case

The complaint arose from two separate incidents involving Jose Villanueva and Atty. Paulino Saguyod, Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 67, Paniqui, Tarlac.

In the first incident, Villanueva went to the court to obtain a certified photocopy of a petition in a land case, acting on instructions from his employer, Atty. Lavezares Leomo. He presented a text message from his employer as authority. Respondent refused, saying a formal written request was required. A heated argument followed, during which respondent allegedly challenged Villanueva to a fistfight and used offensive language.

In the second incident, Villanueva claimed that respondent demanded ₱3,000.00 before releasing a Certificate of Finality in two other land cases. Villanueva paid ₱1,500.00 as an advance, and the certificate was released after thirty minutes. No receipt was issued for the payment.

The Issue

The central questions were whether respondent improperly demanded and received fees for the issuance of court documents, and whether he failed to extend courteous service to a member of the public.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found respondent liable on two counts.

First, respondent committed simple misconduct by demanding ₱3,000.00 as "commissioner's fee" and "appearance fee." The Court explained that clerks of court who are directed by a judge to receive evidence ex parte shall not demand or receive commissioner's fees. Under Section 21(e), Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, only ₱500.00 may be collected for such services. Moreover, a commissioner entitled to reasonable compensation must not be an employee of the court. As a court employee, respondent had no authority to demand or receive any commissioner's fee. The Court imposed a three-month suspension, noting this was respondent's first offense.

Second, respondent was admonished for conduct unbecoming a court employee. While the Court acknowledged that Villanueva was rude and even shouted at respondent, it held that respondent should have conducted himself with the restraint expected of an officer of the court. The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No. 6713) requires public officers to extend prompt, courteous, and adequate service to the public and to observe courtesy, civility, and self-restraint in dealing with people.

The charge that respondent allowed his wife to use the court office for her real estate transactions was dismissed for lack of evidence.

Practical Takeaways

• Court personnel cannot charge unauthorized fees. Clerks of court and other court employees may only collect fees expressly authorized by law or court rules. Demanding payment beyond what is allowed constitutes misconduct.
• Commissioner's fees are not for court employees. If a court employee is directed to receive evidence ex parte, the employee cannot demand or receive commissioner's fees. Only non-court employees acting as commissioners may receive reasonable compensation.
• Courtesy is a legal duty, not an option. Public officers must remain courteous and professional even when dealing with difficult or rude members of the public. Losing one's temper can result in administrative liability.
• Court records are public, but subject to rules. Courts may require a formal written request or proper authorization before releasing documents. A text message from counsel may not suffice, but a formal request should be honored promptly.
• Administrative penalties are real. Simple misconduct carries a penalty of suspension from one month and one day to six months for a first offense, and dismissal for a second offense.

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