|
GASPAR
R. DUTOSME, Complainant, - versus - ATTY. REY D. CAAYON, Respondent. |
A.M. No. P-08-2578 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2924-P]
Present:
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES, CHICO-NAZARIO,*
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,** and PERALTA,***
JJ. Promulgated: July
31, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Gaspar R.
Dutosme (complainant) charged Atty. Rey D. Caayon (respondent), Branch Clerk of
Court, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 61, Bogo, Cebu in an affidavit dated
August 2, 2006, for soliciting and receiving the amount of P2,500 representing
commissioner’s and stenographer’s fees and not issuing an official receipt
therefor.
By
complainant’s claim, he went to Branch 61 of the RTC on May 9, 2006 to secure a
copy of a decision in LRC Case No. 61-0053.
He was able to secure a copy of the decision alright but only after
respondent asked for and received Two Thousand Five Hundred (P2,500)
Pesos representing what respondent told him to be commissioner’s and
stenographer’s fees. And while respondent
gave him a handwritten receipt of the amount, he did not issue an official
receipt.
By 1st
Indorsement of August 29, 2006[1],
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required respondent to file his
Comment to complainant’s Affidavit.
In his Comment,[2]
respondent gave his version as follows:
On May 9, 2006, complainant was looking for Belle Garrido (Belle), the
stenographer who recorded the proceedings in the LRA case. Since Belle was unavailable as she was the
stenographer on duty that day, he furnished complainant a copy of the Decision
after which complainant tendered to him a handful of money with the request
that the same be given to Belle. Albeit
he refused to receive the money, complainant pleaded with him to accept it so, in
good faith, he received the money and prepared the above-stated handwritten
receipt.
Respondent
went on to claim that on his instruction, complainant returned later that day
so that Belle could issue a receipt, but when he asked for the handwritten
receipt he had earlier issued so he could give him the receipt prepared by
Belle, complainant replied that he had already sent it to his boss in Cebu
City.
In support
of his claim, respondent attached a Certification[3]
issued by Garrido and Modesto V. Cuico, both court stenographers of Branch 61, dated
September 8, 2006, which stated that they received the amount of P2,500
from respondent representing payment for the TSNs in LRC Case No. 61-0053.
Complainant
in his letter-reply,[4]
insisted that respondent received the P2,500 as commissioner’s fee.
By Resolution of November 12, 2008,[5]
the parties were required by the Court to manifest whether they were willing to
submit the matter on the basis of the pleadings. Not one of the parties complied.
By Report and Recommendation dated August
19, 2008,[6]
the OCA came up with the following Evaluation.
Atty. Caayon should be held responsible for
exacting an amount from a party litigant.
Section B, Chapter II of the Manual for
Clerks of Court provides: “No Branch Clerk of Court shall demand and/or
receive commissioner’s fees for the reception of evidence ex-parte.”
Despite his denial, we do not doubt that Atty.
Caayon exacted an amount for commissioner’s fee from Mr. Dutosme. This fact appears on the face of the
acknowledgement receipt that he
issued. It clearly indicates receipt of
the amount of P2,500.00 “representing
payment of the Commissioner’s fee and Transcript of Stenographic Notes
in LRC Case No. 61-0063-LRC.”
The comment which Atty. Caayon submitted
cannot be given more weight that the affidavit executed by Mr. Dutosme, considering that the former was not
executed under oath unlike the latter.
Further, there was no showing of any motive on the part of Mr. Dutosme
to fabricate charges against Atty. Caayon.
On the other hand, the certification dated 8 September 2006 issued by
Garrido and Cuico and the subsequent letter dated 18 December 2006 of Garrido
taking full responsibility for the amount are but attempts to exonerate their
superior. All these are self-serving and
inconsistent with the tenor of the more convincing evidence – the
acknowledgment receipt issued by Atty. Caayon.
x x x x
Evidently, Atty. Caayon violated the
provisions of the Manual for Clerks of Court proscribing the collection of
Commissioner’s fee in ex-parte
proceedings.
x x x x
(Emphasis and italics in the original, underscoring supplied)
The OCA thereupon recommended that respondent be found
liable for misconduct and suspended from the service for one (1) month without
pay with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be
dealt with more severely.
The Court finds the Evaluation of the OCA well
taken.
Respondent’s
claim of having received the P2,500 in trust for Belle representing
stenographic fees is belied by the written acknowledgment receipt he himself issued
to complainant stating that the amount was for “commissioner’s and stenographer’s
fees.”
In Nieva
v. Alvarez-Edad,[7]
this Court found the therein respondent Clerk of Court guilty of
demanding/receiving commissioner’s fee in violation of Section B, Chapter II
and Section D(7), Chapter IV of the Manual for Clerks of Court and affirmed the
OCA’s finding that the respondent issued a receipt in the guise of collecting
payment for TSN in behalf of a court stenographer when, in fact, part of the
amount indicated in the receipt was due her as commissioner’s fee.[8] The Court in that case referred to the Manual
as the “Bible for Clerks of Court.”[9]
Section 52(B), Rule IV of the Revised
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service[10]
imposes 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 appears to be the first offense of respondent, his
suspension from the service for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay is in
order.
WHEREFORE, the Court
finds respondent Branch Clerk of Court Rey D. Caayon guilty of Simple
Misconduct and suspends him from the
service for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay, and with the WARNING
that a repetition of the same or a similar offense shall be dealt with more
severely. Let a copy of this Resolution
be attached to the service record of respondent Rey D. Caayon.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO NAZARIO Associate Justice |
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
Associate Justice