The Supreme Court in this case ruled that a court stenographer who prepared and finalized an extrajudicial settlement of estate, a service reserved for lawyers, and received compensation for it, is guilty of simple misconduct. This decision underscores the high ethical standards demanded of court employees, extending beyond their official duties to their private dealings. It reinforces that those working within the judicial system must avoid any appearance of impropriety to maintain public trust and confidence in the judiciary.

The Stenographer’s Sideline: When Court Duties Blur with Legal Practice

This case revolves around Leticia A. Arienda’s complaint against Evelyn A. Monilla, a court stenographer, for conduct unbecoming a court employee and abuse of authority. Arienda alleged that Monilla, along with her husband, Atty. Zaldy Monilla, offered to assist in settling Arienda’s deceased mother’s estate, including preparing an extrajudicial settlement. Arienda paid the spouses Monilla a total of P49,800.00. However, Arienda later discovered that Atty. Monilla was employed at the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and that Evelyn Monilla was not a lawyer, leading her to believe they had no authority to settle the estate. Monilla countered that Arienda sought their help and that she only assisted in preparing the extrajudicial settlement at Arienda’s request, denying any impropriety. The central legal question is whether Monilla’s actions constitute misconduct, given her position as a court employee and her unauthorized practice of law.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the preparation of an extrajudicial settlement constitutes the practice of law. The court quoted Cayetano v. Monsod, defining the practice of law as:

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.” x x x.

Building on this definition, the Court highlighted that because Monilla is not a lawyer, she lacked the authority to prepare and finalize such a document. The fact that she also received payment for these services further compounded the impropriety. Court employees are held to a higher standard of conduct, and their actions must be beyond reproach to maintain the integrity of the judiciary. As the Supreme Court stated in Spouses Tiples, Jr. v. Montoyo:

It is true that respondent prepared and finalized the extrajudicial settlement of estate pursuant to a private agreement between her and complainant. However, 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. 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.

Monilla’s defense, which included mentioning a related civil case, was deemed irrelevant by the Court, as that case involved different parties and issues. The Court focused on the established facts of Monilla’s unauthorized practice of law and her receipt of compensation, which are clear violations of ethical standards for court employees. The Court also cited Hernando v. Bengson, defining misconduct as:

Misconduct generally means wrongful, unlawful conduct, motivated by a premeditated, obstinate or intentional purpose. Thus, any transgression or deviation from the established norm, whether it be work-related or not, amounts to misconduct.

Therefore, Monilla’s actions were considered a simple misconduct, punishable under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. The Court, considering this was her first offense and her length of service, imposed a fine equivalent to four months’ salary, to be deducted from her retirement benefits. The ruling emphasizes that all court personnel, regardless of their position, must adhere to the highest ethical standards to preserve the integrity and reputation of the judiciary.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a court stenographer committed misconduct by preparing and finalizing an extrajudicial settlement of estate and receiving compensation for it, despite not being a lawyer.
What is an extrajudicial settlement of estate?	An extrajudicial settlement of estate is an agreement among the heirs of a deceased person to divide the estate among themselves without going to court. This process typically requires legal knowledge and is usually handled by lawyers.
Why is it considered the practice of law to prepare an extrajudicial settlement?	Preparing an extrajudicial settlement requires the application of legal knowledge and procedure, which is characteristic of the legal profession. It involves understanding inheritance laws and ensuring the proper transfer of property.
What ethical standards are expected of court employees?	Court employees are expected to exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity, not only in their official duties but also in their private dealings. They must avoid any appearance of impropriety to preserve the court’s good name and standing.
What is simple misconduct in the context of this case?	Simple misconduct refers to a transgression or deviation from established norms, whether work-related or not, that does not involve moral turpitude. In this case, it was the unauthorized practice of law and receiving compensation for it.
What penalty was imposed on the respondent?	The respondent was found guilty of simple misconduct and was fined an amount equivalent to four months’ salary, to be deducted from her retirement benefits.
Why was the related civil case deemed irrelevant?	The related civil case was between different parties and involved different issues than the administrative case against the court stenographer. Therefore, it did not affect the Court’s decision regarding the stenographer’s misconduct.
What is the significance of this ruling for court employees?	This ruling serves as a reminder to court employees that they are held to a high ethical standard and must not engage in activities that constitute the unauthorized practice of law or create a conflict of interest.

This case highlights the importance of upholding ethical standards within the judiciary. Court employees must be mindful of their conduct both inside and outside the workplace to maintain public trust and confidence in the legal system. Engaging in activities that constitute the unauthorized practice of law, especially for compensation, is a serious breach of these ethical obligations.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: LETICIA A. ARIENDA vs. EVELYN A. MONILLA, A.M. No. P-11-2980, June 10, 2013