NIEVA vs.

ALVAREZ-EDAD
A.M. No. P-01-1459
January 31, 2005

SUMMARY: Nieva filed an administrative complaint against Alvarez-Edad, Branch

Clerk of Court of MeTC Br. 32, QC, for allegedly demanding or receiving
commissioner’s fee for reception of evidence ex-parte, among others.

DOCTRINE: To be entitled to reasonable compensation, a commissioner must not be an

employee of the court. Edad overstepped her powers and responsibilities. She demanded and
received a commissioner’s fee from a litigant in an ex-parte proceedings. Such act violates
Section B, Chapter II of the Manual for Clerks of Court.

FACTS: Maritoni M. Nieva, former legal researcher of MeTC, Br. 32,QC, filed the
instant administrative complaint charging Saturnina Alvarez-Edad, Branch Clerk of
Court of the same Branch, with the ff. administrative offenses:
1) Falsification of daily time records;
 The entries in her DTR of the time of her arrival in the office and
departure therefrom vary from her entries in the logbook.
2) Dishonesty for demanding or receiving commissioner’s fee for reception of
evidence ex-parte;
 Edad demanded from a Billy Ranas, a messenger from Unifunds, P1,500
as commissioner’s fee in connection with the ex-parte hearing in Unifunds vs.
Sps. Ann and Jose Aquino et al. She threatened to delay the disposition of the
case when she was given P500. Eventually, she signed a receipt for P500 but
kept P300 for herself and gave Cueto, the stenographer, only P200.
3) Conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service;
 She allowed Mother Lily Monteverde to post bail although she did not
personally appear in court
 She publicly humiliates complainant, the lawyers, the accused, and the
members of her staff
 She issued certified true copies of a warrant of arrest in “People of the
Philippines vs. Raquel ‘Mana’ Rodriguez” without requiring requesting party
to pay legal fees;
 She is discourteous and disrespectful in the conduct of official business
in court:
 an unfair and unreasonable closing of the attendance logbook before
the 30-minute grace period (as stenographer Helen);
 Unfair and unreasonable notation in the logbook that the
complainant reported in the office ‘half-day’ (as to complainant)
 Humiliating lawyers and litigants;
  Insulting complainant in front of the lawyers in the Ozone case;
hence, Nieva was forced to resign on Edad’s “pretext” that she “did not
live up to her expectations.”
 Forcing complainant and utility worker Danilo De la Cruz to resign
from the service when she unjustly charged him with insubordination

Edad denied all the charges against her. SC subsequently referred the case to the
Executive Judge, MeTC, QC.

Exec. Judge Dayrit: Exonerated Edad from all the charges, except for dishonesty (for
her act of demanding commissioner’s fees from Unifunds and keeping of the P300).

Guilty of 2 counts of dishonesty, suspended from the service for 1 year without
pay and disqualified for promotion or from receiving any increase in salary during the
pendency of the suspension

OCA: While Edad is not administratively liable for other charges, she is guilty of
violating the Manual for Clerks of Court which absolutely prohibits a clerk of court to
receive commissioner’s fees
Provisions:
(a) Section B, Chapter II (p. 36), which states that: ‘No Branch Clerk of
Court shall demand and/or receive commissioner’s fees for reception of
evidence ex-parte; and
(b) Section D.7, Chapter IV(p. 74), which states that: ‘The Court shall
allow the commissioner, other than an employee of the Court, such
reasonable compensation as the circumstances of the case warrant to be
taxed as costs against the defeated party, or apportioned, as justice
requires.’
No dishonesty: The normal fee for ex-parte hearing is P1,500: P1,000 goes to the
Branch Clerk, then P500 goes to the Court Stenographer. Since she was able to
collect only P500, she gave Court Stenographer Cueto the P200. There is absence
of an intent or motive to gain. When she gave Cueto P200, she is merely giving
the latter her share for transcribing the stenographic notes.
However, Edad was collecting commissioner’s fee when she demanded
payment from Unifunds.
Edad: It was Presiding Judge Marquez who conducted the ex-parte hearing
OCA: Immaterial. The Manual is very clear that a Branch Clerk is prohibited to
demand commissioner’s fee. o Sec. 9, Rule 30, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: in
default or ex-parte hearings, and in any case where the parties agree in
writing, the court may delegate the reception of evidence to its clerk of court
who is a member of the bar.
 CAB: As a Branch Clerk of Court who is a non-lawyer, she ought to know that
it is only a member of the bar who is authorized to receive evidence ex-parte.
Penalty: FINE in the sum of P1,000. Edad is SEVERELY REPRIMANDED with
WARNING that a repetition of a similar act shall be dealt with more severely
The facts do not warrant Edad’s dismissal considering that out of the 7
charges, Nieva was able to prove only 1 of the charges. Since this is the
first time that Edad was administratively charged after serving the
judiciary for 10 years, the present complaint should be treated as an
isolated incident.

ISSUE + RATIO: Whether or not Alvarez-Edad should be administratively liable for

collecting commissioner’s fee?
(YES) Clerks of court are required to be persons of competence, honesty and probity.
CAB: Edad overstepped her powers and responsibilities. She demanded and received a
commissioner’s fee from a litigant in an ex-parte proceedings. Such act violates Section
B, Chapter II of the Manual for Clerks of Court.
Restated in Circular No. 50-2001 (Aug. 17, 2001): “For the guidance and
information of all concerned, “x x x Clerks of Court are not authorized to collect
compensation for services rendered as commissioners in ex parte
proceedings.’”
To be entitled to reasonable compensation, a commissioner must not be an employee of
the court.
Sec. D (7), Chapter IV of the same Manual for Clerks of Cour: “The Court shall
allow the commissioner, other than an employee of the court, such reasonable
compensation as the circumstances of the case warrant to be taxed as costs
against the defeated party, or apportioned, as justice requires.”
CAB: As a court employee, Alvarez-Edad has no authority to demand or receive any
commissioner’s fee. She does not meet the strict judicial standard when she demanded
and collected commissioner’s fee.

ISSUE + RATIO: Whether or not the penalty imposed (fine and reprimand) is proper?
(NO) The penalty recommended is too light. Edad’s transgression constitutes simple
misconduct, classified as a less grave offense under Sec. 52 (B), Rule IV of the Revised
Uniform Rules On Administrative Cases In The Civil Service
1st Offense – Suspension (1 mo. 1 day to 6 mos.)
2nd Offense – Dismissal

DISPOSITION: Saturnina Alvarez-Edad 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. She is hereby SUSPENDED for 2 months without pay
and WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar offense shall be dealt with more
severely.