A.M. No. P-08-2578; July 31, 2009
Gaspar R. Dutosme, Complainant, vs. Atty. Rey D. Caayon, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Gaspar R. Dutosme charged Atty. Rey D. Caayon, Branch Clerk of Court of the RTC, Branch 61, Bogo, Cebu, with soliciting and receiving the amount of ₱2,500.00. Dutosme alleged that on May 9, 2006, when he went to secure a copy of a decision in LRC Case No. 61-0053, respondent asked for and received the said amount, representing commissioner’s and stenographer’s fees. While respondent issued a handwritten acknowledgment receipt, he did not issue an official receipt for the payment.
In his Comment, respondent denied soliciting the money. He claimed that after furnishing the complainant a copy of the decision, the complainant voluntarily tendered a handful of money with a request that it be given to the stenographer, Belle Garrido. Respondent asserted he initially refused but later accepted it in good faith and prepared the handwritten receipt. He further stated that he instructed the complainant to return later for an official receipt from Garrido, but the complainant failed to do so, claiming he had already sent the handwritten receipt to his boss. Respondent submitted a certification from court stenographers Garrido and Cuico, dated September 8, 2006, stating they received the ₱2,500.00 from him for Transcripts of Stenographic Notes (TSNs).

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Rey D. Caayon is administratively liable for misconduct for soliciting and receiving commissioner’s fees.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent guilty of Simple Misconduct. The Court gave greater weight to the complainant’s sworn affidavit over the respondent’s unverified Comment. The most convincing evidence was the handwritten acknowledgment receipt issued by respondent himself, which explicitly stated the ₱2,500.00 was for “commissioner’s and stenographer’s fees.” This receipt directly contradicted his defense that the money was merely received in trust for stenographic fees only.
The Court emphasized that Section B, Chapter II of the Manual for Clerks of Court expressly prohibits a Branch Clerk of Court from demanding or receiving commissioner’s fees for the reception of evidence in ex-parte proceedings. By issuing a receipt indicating collection of a commissioner’s fee, respondent violated this rule. The certification from the stenographers was deemed a self-serving attempt to exonerate their superior and was inconsistent with the clear tenor of the acknowledgment receipt. Following Section 52(B), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, which prescribes suspension for one month and one day to six months for a first offense of Misconduct, the Court suspended respondent for one month and one day without pay, with a stern warning against repetition.