G.R. No. A.M. No. P-11-2980; June 10, 2013
LETICIA A. ARIENDA, Complainant, vs. EVELYN A. MONILLA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 4, LEGAZPI CITY, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Leticia A. Arienda filed an administrative complaint against respondent Evelyn A. Monilla, a Court Stenographer III, for conduct unbecoming a court employee and abuse of authority. Complainant alleged that respondent and her husband, Atty. Zaldy Monilla, offered their services in January 2002 to settle the estate of complainant’s deceased mother, preparing an extrajudicial settlement and arranging for a survey by respondent’s brother, Engineer Matias A. Arquero. Complainant paid a total of ₱49,800.00, as evidenced by six Temporary Receipts, but the spouses Monilla demanded an additional ₱20,000.00 before releasing the approved survey plan and extrajudicial settlement. Complainant later discovered that Atty. Monilla was employed at the Department of Agrarian Reform and respondent was not a lawyer.
In her defense, respondent claimed that complainant and her sister requested her assistance in December 2000 to convince her brother, Engr. Arquero, to partition their parents’ lots. Respondent initially hesitated but eventually helped, preparing and finalizing the extrajudicial settlement after complainant’s partition case was dismissed. Respondent admitted receiving ₱49,800.00 from complainant at her residence, explaining that ₱25,000.00 was for her husband’s preparation of legal documents and ₱24,800.00 was for her brother’s surveying services. She asserted she had turned over the notarized extrajudicial settlement, subdivision plan blueprint, and a deed of sale by March 30, 2003, but the subdivision plan was not approved due to complainant’s failure to submit requirements. Respondent, who had retired effective April 23, 2007, alleged the complaint was induced by former co-employees.
The case was referred for investigation, and the Investigating Judge found substantial evidence of simple misconduct, recommending a fine equivalent to two months’ salary deducted from retirement benefits. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended a finding of simple misconduct but proposed increasing the fine to four months’ salary.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Evelyn A. Monilla is administratively liable for simple misconduct for preparing an extrajudicial settlement of estate and receiving compensation for it, despite not being a lawyer.

RULING

Yes, the Court found respondent GUILTY of simple misconduct. The act of preparing and finalizing an extrajudicial settlement of estate constitutes the practice of law, as defined in Cayetano v. Monsod. By engaging in this unauthorized practice of law and receiving payment for it, respondent committed simple misconduct, which is a transgression of established rules of action, whether work-related or not. Under Section 52(B)(2) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, simple misconduct is punishable by suspension for one month and one day to six months. Considering this was respondent’s first offense and she had served the judiciary for almost 16 years, a four-month suspension would have been appropriate. However, as respondent had already retired, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to her salary for four months, to be deducted from her retirement benefits.