G.R. No. A.M. No. P-13-3102. September 8, 2014.
JOSE S. VILLANUEVA, Complainant, vs. ATTY. PAULINO I. SAGUYOD, Clerk of Court VI, Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Paniqui, Tarlac, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jose S. Villanueva, an employee of Atty. Lavezares Leomo, was instructed via text message on February 20, 2007, to obtain a certified photocopy of a Petition in Land Case No. 051-06 from the RTC of Paniqui, Tarlac. Upon arrival, he was initially told to wait. Later, he was informed that the records were in the custody of respondent Atty. Paulino I. Saguyod, the Clerk of Court, but that he must talk to the respondent’s wife, Judith Saguyod, who was present in the office though not a court employee. When complainant requested the photocopy, respondent asked for a Special Power of Attorney. Complainant showed the text message from his employer, but respondent’s wife, after a phone call, stated they would not provide the copy. A heated argument ensued where respondent challenged complainant to a fistfight, used offensive language, and followed him to the parking area to continue the confrontation. Complainant alleged this behavior was an act of vengeance because he had previously failed to pay the remaining balance of ₱1,500.00 for a Certificate of Finality issued in two other land cases (Nos. 021-P06 and 020-P06). He claimed that the respondent had demanded ₱3,000.00 for its issuance, of which he paid ₱1,500.00 in advance without receiving a receipt, and that the petition for four lost titles he filed had been delayed for nine months until payment was made. The complaint charged respondent with violations of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and Section 4(e) of R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees). Respondent denied the charges, justifying his refusal to provide the copy due to the lack of written authority, explaining the delay in the other cases was due to a change in presiding judges, and claiming the ₱3,000.00 was a legitimate commissioner’s fee for reception of evidence. The case was investigated by Executive Judge Liberty O. Castañeda, who recommended dismissal, but her report was nullified as she was under preventive suspension. Acting Presiding Judge Alipio C. Yumul then investigated and also recommended dismissal. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the case and recommended that respondent be admonished for discourtesy and suspended for one month and one day for simple misconduct regarding the demand for ₱3,000.00.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent indirectly demanded and received ₱3,000.00 from complainant for the issuance of a Certificate of Finality.
2. Whether respondent’s receipt of a commissioner’s fee for reception of evidence was legal and proper.
3. Whether respondent extended prompt and courteous service to complainant during the request for a photocopy.
4. Whether respondent’s wife held office in the Office of the Clerk of Court.

RULING

1. Yes, respondent is guilty of simple misconduct for demanding the fee. The Court found respondent’s act of demanding ₱3,000.00 from complainant as a commissioner’s fee and appearance fee to be improper. While a clerk of court may act as a commissioner to receive evidence, the fees for such service must be in accordance with Rule 141 of the Rules of Court and require a court order. Respondent failed to present any court order authorizing him to act as a commissioner or to receive such fees. His admission that he instructed a staff member to inform complainant of the fee, coupled with the complainant’s payment without a receipt, constitutes simple misconduct. The Court modified the OCA’s recommendation and imposed a three-month suspension for this offense.
2. No, the receipt of the fee was not legal and proper. As stated, the demand and acceptance of the ₱3,000.00 lacked legal basis due to the absence of a court order appointing respondent as a commissioner and authorizing the fee, as required by procedural rules.
3. No, respondent failed to extend courteous service. The Court found that respondent engaged in a heated argument, used offensive language (“Punyeta ka! Mayabang ka.”), and challenged complainant to a fight. While complainant’s own conduct was reproachable, as a court officer, respondent was bound by R.A. No. 6713 and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel to act with courtesy, civility, and self-restraint. His reaction was inappropriate. For this, he was admonished and sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.
4. No evidence was presented to prove the wife held office there. The Court upheld the finding that complainant failed to substantiate the claim that respondent’s wife maintained an office within the Clerk of Court’s office. Respondent’s explanation that his wife only dropped by on that day was not rebutted.
DISPOSITIVE:
Respondent Atty. Paulino I. Saguyod is SUSPENDED from the service for three (3) months for SIMPLE MISCONDUCT for demanding the ₱3,000.00 fee. He is also ADMONISHED for Violating the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and Section 4(e) of R.A. No. 6713 and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition will be dealt with more severely.