Case Digest: GASPAR R. DUTOSME v. ATTY. REY D. CAAYON

GASPAR R. DUTOSME v. ATTY. REY D. CAAYON

594 SCRA 542 (2009)

The Manual for Clerks of Court proscribes the collection of Commissioner’s fee in ex-parte proceedings.

Gaspar R. Dutosme (Dutosme) charged Atty. Rey D. Caayon (Atty. Caayon), Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court (RTC), for soliciting and receiving the amount of P2, 500 representing commissioner’s and stenographer’s fees and not issuing an official receipt therefore. Dutosme claims that when he asked for a copy of a decision of one case, Atty. Caayon solicited the amount from him as ―commissioner’s and stenographer’s fee” which Dutosme consequently gave. Atty. Caayon issued a written receipt instead an official receipt.

Atty. Caayon claims that Dutosme was looking for the stenographer who has the copy of the case but because the stenographer was absent, Atty. Caayon furnished Dutosme with a copy instead. Dutosme later tendered to him money requesting that the same be given to the court stenographer who has the copy of the case. He refused to receive the money so that Dutosme pleaded with him to accept it. Thus, in good faith, he received the money and prepared the above-stated handwritten receipt. By Report and Recommendation, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) came up with the evaluation that Atty. Caayon should be held responsible for exacting an amount from a Dutosme based on Section B, Chapter II of the Manual for Clerks of Court which provides that: “No Branch Clerk of Court shall demand and/or receive commissioner’s fees for the reception of evidence ex-parte.”

ISSUE:

Whether or not Atty. Caayon should be held guilty of misconduct for violating the provisions of the Manual for Clerks of Court proscribing the collection of Commissioner’s fee in ex-parte proceedings

HELD:

Atty. Caayon’s claim of having received the P2,500 in trust for Belle representing stenographic fees is belied by the written acknowledgment receipt he himself issued to complainant stating that the amount was for “commissioner’s and stenographer’s fees.”

In Nieva v. Alvarez-Edad, the Court found the therein respondent Clerk of Court guilty of demanding/receiving commissioner’s fee in violation of Section B, Chapter II and Section D (7), Chapter IV of the Manual for Clerks of Court and affirmed the OCA’s finding that the respondent issued a receipt in the guise of collecting payment for TSN in behalf of a court stenographer when, in fact, part of the amount indicated in the receipt was due her as commissioner’s fee. The Court in that case referred to the Manual as the “Bible for Clerks of Court.”