Arienda vs. Monilla

A court employee who is not a lawyer but prepares and finalizes an extrajudicial settlement of estate—a document requiring legal knowledge and skill—and receives compensation therefor, commits simple misconduct punishable under Section 52(B)(2) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.

Respondent Evelyn A. Monilla served as Court Stenographer III at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4 of Legazpi City. Complainant Leticia A. Arienda, a neighbor and relative of Monilla, sought respondent's assistance in settling the estate of her deceased mother, which involved partitioning several lots located in Bigaa, Legazpi City. Monilla's husband, Atty. Zaldy Monilla, was employed at the Department of Agrarian Reform, while her brother, Engineer Matias A. Arquero, was a geodetic engineer who conducted surveys of the properties.

• Complainant alleged that respondent and her husband, Atty. Zaldy Monilla, went to complainant's house on January 13, 2002, offering their services to settle the estate of complainant's deceased mother, with respondent's brother conducting the survey of the estate.
• Complainant claimed she paid the spouses Monilla a total of P49,800.00 as evidenced by six Temporary Receipts, but they refused to turn over the approved survey plan and extrajudicial settlement unless she paid an additional P20,000.00.
• Complainant subsequently discovered that respondent was not a lawyer but a court employee, and that Atty. Monilla was employed at the Department of Agrarian Reform, not in private practice.
• Respondent denied offering services and claimed that complainant and her sister approached her in December 2000 requesting assistance to convince Engr. Arquero to partition the lots.
• Respondent admitted that she prepared and finalized the extrajudicial settlement of estate after complainant and her siblings pleaded for help, claiming they had no money to pay their lawyer in a pending partition case.
• Respondent admitted receiving P49,800.00 from complainant, explaining that P25,000.00 was for Atty. Monilla's preparation of various documents (deeds of sale, extrajudicial settlements, contracts to sell, authorities to sell, and demand letter) and P24,800.00 was for Engr. Arquero's survey services.
• Respondent claimed she turned over the notarized extrajudicial settlement and subdivision plan on March 30, 2003, but the plan was not approved by the Bureau of Lands due to complainant's failure to submit other requirements.
• Respondent had filed for early retirement effective April 23, 2007, prior to the resolution of the administrative complaint.

• Respondent and her husband voluntarily offered their services to settle the estate of complainant's deceased mother, representing that they had the authority and capability to do so.
• Complainant paid a total of P49,800.00 for the preparation of the extrajudicial settlement and survey of the properties, but respondents refused to deliver the documents unless additional payment was made.
• Respondent had no authority to prepare legal documents settling the estate because she was not a lawyer but merely a court stenographer, and her husband was a government employee at the Department of Agrarian Reform, not authorized to engage in private legal practice.
• Respondent's actions constituted conduct unbecoming a court employee and abuse of authority, warranting administrative sanctions.

• It was complainant who approached respondent seeking assistance, not the other way around, and respondent initially refused due to complainant's reputation as a troublemaker but eventually agreed due to familial relations.
• Respondent was not privy to any agreement between complainant and Engr. Arquero regarding the survey, and she merely helped prepare the extrajudicial settlement because complainant and her siblings were in financial distress and had no lawyer.
• The amount of P49,800.00 was properly accounted for: P25,000.00 for Atty. Monilla's legal services in preparing various documents, and P24,800.00 for Engr. Arquero's survey fees, with respondent merely acting as a conduit for the payments.
• Respondent had already turned over the completed documents to complainant, and the failure to approve the subdivision plan was due to complainant's own failure to submit required documents to the Bureau of Lands.
• Complainant knew all along that respondent was not a lawyer and that Atty. Monilla was a DAR employee, as they were neighbors and relatives, and complainant had previously consulted Atty. Monilla regarding family properties.
• The complaint was filed as a result of a conspiracy by respondent's former co-employees at the RTC to harass her after she had already filed for early retirement.

• Procedural Issues:
  • N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether respondent committed simple misconduct by preparing and finalizing an extrajudicial settlement of estate despite not being a lawyer and receiving compensation therefor.
  • Whether the penalty of fine equivalent to four months' salary, to be deducted from retirement benefits, is appropriate given the circumstances.

• Procedural:
  • N/A
• Substantive:
  • The Court found respondent guilty of simple misconduct. Preparation of an extrajudicial settlement of estate constitutes the practice of law as defined in Cayetano v. Monsod, as it requires the application of legal knowledge and skill.
  • As a non-lawyer, respondent had no authority to prepare and finalize such legal documents. Her status as a court employee further aggravated her offense because she ought to have known that such conduct was improper.
  • Receiving money for services that only a lawyer is authorized to perform violates the ethical standards imposed upon court employees, whose conduct must always be beyond reproach and free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary.
  • 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 served the judiciary for almost 16 years, and given her retirement status, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to four months' salary to be deducted from her retirement benefits instead of suspension.

• Practice of Law — Defined as any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience, including the preparation of legal documents such as extrajudicial settlements of estate which require legal knowledge or skill. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that respondent, not being a lawyer, engaged in unauthorized practice of law.
• Standards of Conduct for Court Employees — Court employees must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of official duties but also in personal and private dealings to preserve the court's good name and standing. Their conduct must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility to remain free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary.
• Misconduct — Defined as wrongful, unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose, or any transgression or deviation from the established norm, whether work-related or not. The Court classified respondent's actions as simple misconduct under this doctrine.

• "Practice of law means any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training and experience. 'To engage in the practice of law is to perform those acts which are characteristics of the profession. Generally, to practice law is to give notice or render any kind of service, which device or service requires the use in any degree of legal knowledge or skill.'" — Quoted from Cayetano v. Monsod to establish that preparation of extrajudicial settlement constitutes practice of law.
• "Respondent is an employee of the court whose conduct must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility as to let her be free from any suspicion that may taint the judiciary." — Emphasizing the high ethical standards required of court personnel.
• "She is expected to exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the performance of her official duties but also in her personal and private dealings with other people to preserve the court's good name and standing." — Reinforcing the principle that judicial employees are held to strict ethical standards in all aspects of their conduct.

• Cayetano v. Monsod, 278 Phil. 235 (1991) — Cited for the authoritative definition of "practice of law" which includes any activity requiring the application of legal knowledge, training, and experience, whether in or out of court.
• Spouses Tiples, Jr. v. Montoyo, 523 Phil. 404 (2006) — Cited for the established principle that court employees must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity in both official and private dealings to preserve the court's good name.
• Hernando v. Bengson, A.M. No. P-09-2686, March 10, 2010, 615 SCRA 7 — Cited for the definition of misconduct as wrongful, unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose, or any transgression from established norms.

• Section 52(B)(2) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Cited as the provision prescribing the penalty for simple misconduct (suspension for one month and one day to six months), which the Court adapted to impose a fine equivalent to four months' salary given the respondent's retirement status.