Pulgar vs. Resurreccion and Eugenio

A court employee who usurps the functions of a commissioner by receiving evidence ex parte without being a member of the bar, and who illegally exacts money from litigants under the guise of commissioner's fees, commits grave misconduct warranting dismissal from the service even for a first offense.

Atty. Frumencio E. Pulgar served as counsel for the petitioner in Civil Case No. 95-079, an annulment of marriage proceeding pending before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 276, Muntinlupa City. On February 26, 1997, Atty. Pulgar presented the petitioner's evidence ex parte. Paul M. Resurreccion, then Court Interpreter and Acting Branch Clerk of Court of said branch, received the evidence despite not being a lawyer. Resurreccion demanded ₱5,000 from Atty. Pulgar as payment for the ex parte proceeding—₱2,000 paid directly by Atty. Pulgar and ₱3,000 delivered the next day by Atty. Pulgar's liaison officer, also without receipt. When the petition was subsequently denied, Resurreccion publicly confronted Atty. Pulgar in open court on February 21, 2000, loudly demanding additional payment and accusing him of failing to pay the balance, causing humiliation to the lawyer.

• Nature of the Complaint: Atty. Pulgar charged Court Interpreter Paul M. Resurreccion with extortion, illegal exaction, and blackmail for demanding ₱5,000 as commissioner's fees for receiving evidence ex parte in an annulment case, and for violating Administrative Circular No. 31-90.
• The Ex Parte Proceeding: On February 26, 1997, Resurreccion, despite not being a lawyer and thus unqualified, acted as commissioner to receive the petitioner's evidence ex parte in Civil Case No. 95-079. He demanded ₱5,000 from Atty. Pulgar—₱2,000 paid directly without receipt, and ₱3,000 delivered the next day by Atty. Pulgar's liaison officer, also without receipt.
• Public Confrontation: On February 21, 2000, Resurreccion approached Atty. Pulgar in open court before another sala, loudly demanded payment of the alleged balance, and accused him of withholding money intended for the stenographer, causing embarrassment in the presence of other lawyers and court personnel.
• The Cover-Up: During the investigation conducted by Judge Guerrero, Court Stenographer Maricar M. Eugenio testified that Gina Bacayon, then Acting Clerk of Court, had received the evidence, not Resurreccion. She claimed she merely asked for payment of the transcript of stenographic notes. Judge Guerrero found this testimony false and intended to mislead the investigation to cover up Resurreccion's malfeasance.
• Lower Court Findings: Judge Perello initially recommended dismissal for lack of evidence. Judge Guerrero subsequently found Resurreccion guilty of exacting money for non-existent legal fees and recommended suspension, noting the act was grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

• Illegal Exaction and Extortion: Atty. Pulgar maintained that Resurreccion used his position as Acting Branch Clerk of Court to extort ₱5,000 in exchange for non-existent goodwill and a promised favorable decision, violating Administrative Circular No. 31-90 and Republic Act No. 6713.
• Usurpation of Function: Resurreccion acted as commissioner to receive evidence ex parte despite not being a member of the bar, in violation of Section 9, Rule 30 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Public Humiliation: Resurreccion's loud and public demand for payment in open court on February 21, 2000 constituted blackmail and caused needless anxiety and shame, diminishing faith in the judiciary.

• Resurreccion's Defense:
• Denial of Participation: Resurreccion denied receiving the evidence ex parte, claiming that Gina Bacayon, the Acting Clerk of Court, conducted the proceeding. He denied receiving any payment and questioned the absence of an affidavit from the liaison officer.
• Legitimate Collection: He argued that any demand made on February 21, 2000 was merely a reminder to pay the stenographer's fees for the transcript of stenographic notes, not a demand for commissioner's fees.
• Counsel's Negligence: He contended that Atty. Pulgar lost the case due to his own negligence in failing to present the psychiatrist's testimony, not because of any unpaid fees.
• Eugenio's Defense:
• Truthful Testimony: Eugenio denied giving false testimony, asserting she was a God-fearing person who told the truth. She claimed she never demanded excessive payment and that the transcript of stenographic notes actually existed and was furnished to Judge Guerrero's staff.
• Clerical Errors: She attributed inaccuracies in the transcript of her testimony to errors in recording her vernacular answers.

• Grave Misconduct: Whether Resurreccion committed grave misconduct by usurping the function of a commissioner and illegally exacting fees from a law practitioner.
• Dishonesty: Whether Eugenio committed simple dishonesty by giving false testimony during the administrative investigation to cover up Resurreccion's misconduct.

• Grave Misconduct: Resurreccion was guilty of grave misconduct. He usurped the function of a commissioner by receiving evidence ex parte without being a lawyer, violating Section 9, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court which requires such commissioner to be a member of the bar. He illegally exacted ₱5,000 as commissioner's fees, which had no legal basis under Rule 141 and violated Circular No. 50-2001 and the Manual of Clerks of Court. These acts manifested corruption, clear intent to violate the law, and flagrant disregard of established rules, warranting dismissal under Section 46, Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service.
• Dishonesty: Eugenio was guilty of simple dishonesty. Her testimony intended to create the false impression that Resurreccion could not have demanded commissioner's fees because he did not receive the evidence, thereby misleading the investigating judge. Such false testimony to shield a colleague constituted simple dishonesty punishable by suspension of six months without pay.

• Grave Misconduct Distinguished — Grave misconduct, as distinguished from simple misconduct, requires the manifest elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rules. Corruption consists in the unlawful use of position or office to procure benefit for oneself or another contrary to the rights of others. Resurreccion's acts of illegally exacting fees while usurping the function of a commissioner satisfied these elements.
• Public Office as Public Trust — Section 1, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution mandates that public officers and employees must serve with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency. Any impropriety by judicial personnel erodes public confidence in the judiciary, as the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct of its personnel.
• Qualifications for Commissioner — Only a clerk of court who is a member of the bar may be delegated to receive evidence ex parte in default or ex parte hearings under Section 9, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court. A court interpreter who is not a lawyer cannot validly serve as such commissioner.
• Prohibition on Unauthorized Fees — Clerks of court are prohibited from demanding or receiving commissioner's fees for reception of evidence ex parte, as provided in Circular No. 50-2001 and the Manual of Clerks of Court. Such fees are not enumerated in Rule 141 of the Rules of Court.

• "Any employee or official of the Judiciary who usurps the functions of another employee or official, or illegally exacts money from law practitioners and litigants is guilty of grave misconduct, and may be dismissed from the service even for the first offense."
• "Employees of the Judiciary are expected to be examples of integrity, honesty and uprightness. Their conduct should be characterized by propriety and decorum."
• "The image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct of its personnel; hence, it becomes their constant duty to maintain the good name and standing of the Judiciary as a true temple of justice."

• Galindes v. Susbilla-De Vera, A.M. No. P-13-3126 — Cited for the constitutional principle that public office is a public trust and the standard of conduct required of judicial employees.
• Santiago v. Jovellanos, Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-00-1289 — Followed for the penalty of suspension imposed on a court employee who gave false testimony.
• RTC Makati Movement Against Graft And Corruption v. Dumlao, A.M. No. P-93-800 — Cited for the prohibition in the Manual of Clerks of Court against collecting commissioner's fees for ex parte proceedings.

• Section 1, Article XI, 1987 Constitution — Mandates that public office is a public trust and public officers must serve with responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency.
• Section 9, Rule 30, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Provides that only a clerk of court who is a member of the bar may be delegated to receive evidence in default or ex parte hearings.
• Rule 141, Rules of Court — Enumerates legal fees collectible by courts; commissioner's fees for receiving evidence ex parte are not included.
• Circular No. 50-2001 — Prohibits unauthorized collection of fees or compensation by clerks of court for reception of evidence ex parte.
• Section 46, Rule 10, Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service — Classifies serious dishonesty and grave misconduct as grave offenses punishable by dismissal.
• Republic Act No. 6713, Section 7(d) — Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees; prohibits soliciting or accepting gifts or monetary value in the course of official duties.

Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chief Justice), Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, and Francis H. Jardeleza.