AM P 02 1594; (February, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. P-02-1594; February 19, 2003
Atty. Ignacio R. Concepcion vs. Atty. Ronaldo Hubilla
FACTS
Atty. Ignacio R. Concepcion inquired with the Court Administrator regarding the proper fees for clerks of court appointed as commissioners to receive evidence in ex-parte proceedings. He reported that in three separate cases where default orders were issued, the designated clerks of court charged his clients varying commissioner’s fees without issuing official receipts. The Supreme Court, upon learning of this, clarified that clerks of court have no legal authority to collect personal compensation for such services and ordered an investigation.
The investigation identified Atty. Ronaldo Hubilla, then Clerk of Court of RTC Branch 37, Manila, as one who admitted receiving a P2,500.00 commissioner’s fee. He defended his actions by stating the practice was already institutionalized when he assumed his post, that he believed it had legal basis under the Rules of Court, and that the fee was shared among court staff. He also claimed he acted in good faith, issued a receipt when requested, and had since refunded the amount.
ISSUE
Whether Atty. Ronaldo Hubilla is administratively liable for accepting a commissioner’s fee for receiving evidence ex-parte.
RULING
Yes, Atty. Hubilla is administratively liable. The Court ruled that the Manual for Clerks of Court explicitly prohibits branch clerks of court from demanding or receiving any commissioner’s fees for the reception of evidence ex-parte. This duty is part of their official functions for which they receive a government salary. Atty. Hubilla’s defense of good faith, based on a perceived existing practice and a misunderstanding of Rule 32, Section 13 of the Rules of Court (which applies to private commissioners, not court employees acting in an official capacity), is untenable.
The legal logic is clear: a court employee cannot personally profit from a task that is a direct component of their official duties. By accepting the fee, Hubilla failed to adhere to the specific prohibitions governing his office. His lack of awareness of the manual’s provision constitutes negligence in familiarizing himself with the ethical and legal boundaries of his position. However, considering his twelve years of otherwise unblemished government service and this being his first offense, the Court deemed a reprimand as the appropriate penalty. This balanced the need to uphold strict ethical standards with considerations of his record and demonstrated remorse.