G.R. No. P-01-1459. January 31, 2005.
MARITONI M. NIEVA, complainant, vs. SATURNINA ALVAREZ-EDAD, Branch Clerk of Court, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 32, Quezon City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Maritoni M. Nieva, a former legal researcher, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Saturnina Alvarez-Edad, the Branch Clerk of Court, for multiple offenses including falsification of daily time records, dishonesty, and demanding a commissioner’s fee. The complaint alleged that respondent demanded and received ₱1,500.00 as a commissioner’s fee from a messenger of Unifunds for an ex-parte hearing. When initially offered ₱500.00, respondent refused, publicly chastising the messenger and threatening to delay the case. She later accepted ₱500.00 from another Unifunds representative but had a receipt prepared indicating payment for “stenographic notes.” Respondent kept ₱300.00 for herself and gave only ₱200.00 to the stenographer without her consent.
Respondent denied all charges. The case was referred for investigation. The Executive Judge found the evidence insufficient to prove falsification of time records but found respondent liable for dishonesty concerning the demand and receipt of the fee. The judge recommended a one-year suspension. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) later evaluated the case and recommended a lighter penalty of a fine and reprimand, characterizing the act as simple misconduct for a first-time offender.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Saturnina Alvarez-Edad is administratively liable for demanding and receiving a commissioner’s fee, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court found the charge of demanding and receiving a commissioner’s fee to be substantiated by evidence. The act constitutes a violation of the Manual for Clerks of Court, which prohibits clerks of court from demanding or receiving any gift, fee, or other valuable consideration in the course of their official duties. Respondent’s actions—demanding a specific sum, publicly berating a party for non-payment, accepting money under the false pretext of stenographic fees, and misappropriating a portion—demonstrate a clear breach of ethical standards and constitute simple misconduct.
The Court rejected the OCA’s recommended penalty as too lenient. Applying the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple misconduct is a less grave offense punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months for the first offense. Considering the respondent’s position as a branch clerk of court, which demands the highest standards of integrity, and the need to uphold public confidence in the judiciary, the Court imposed a suspension of two months without pay. She was also sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. The other charges were not sufficiently proven.