G.R. No.: A.M. No. P-02-1630; August 27, 2002
Case Parties: EFREN V. PEREZ, complainant, vs. ELADIA T. CUNTING, Clerk of Court IV, MTCC-OCC, Zamboanga City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Efren V. Perez, owner of SLR Lending Haus, wrote to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) inquiring about the legal authority for sheriffs to collect specific fees (₱100 for serving summons, ₱600 for implementing a writ of execution, and ₱700 for extrajudicial foreclosure) from client agencies. The OCA endorsed the letter to respondent Eladia T. Cunting, Clerk of Court IV, for comment. In her comment, respondent defended the fees as necessary cash advances for transportation and incidental expenses, citing that sheriffs are not required to spend their own money for litigants. She further made derogatory remarks about complainant, alleging he ran a lending business known for exorbitant interest rates and filed frivolous cases. Complainant then filed this administrative complaint, arguing respondent failed to cite specific legal bases for the fees and was discourteous. In a subsequent comment, respondent cited Rule 141, §9 of the Rules of Court regarding sheriff’s fees and expenses. The OCA found merit in the complaint, noting respondent’s response was not properly cited and contained irrelevant, derogatory remarks, and recommended she be admonished.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Eladia T. Cunting is administratively liable for discourtesy in the performance of her official duties in her response to complainant’s query.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable for discourtesy. The Supreme Court found her November 14, 2001 comment to be discourteous and arrogant, as it included derogatory and irrelevant remarks about complainant’s character and business practices, which were unnecessary for addressing a simple query on legal bases for sheriff’s fees. As a public officer, respondent is bound to observe courtesy, civility, and self-restraint. Her actions violated the code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees ( R.A. No. 6713 ). Applying Rule XIV, Sec. 23 of the Civil Service Law, and consistent with precedents (Peñalosa v. Viscaya, Jr.; Paras v. Lofranco; Reyes v. Patiag), the Court imposed the penalty of REPRIMAND for this first offense of discourtesy, with a warning that repetition will be dealt with more severely. The OCA’s recommendation was adopted but the penalty was modified from admonition to reprimand.