05.) LETICIA ARIENDA v. EVELYN MONILLA, COURT STENOGRAPHER, f.
f. Complainant knew that Atty Molina was a DAR employee and
RTC LEGAZPI CITY
AM No. P-11-2980 June 10 2013
Topic: Settlement of Decedents’ Estates
Facts:
1. This is an administrative complaint for conduct unbecoming a court
employee and abuse of authority filed by Leticia against Evelyn.
2. Leticia (complainant) alleged that:
a. Evelyn and Atty. Zaldy Monilla, her husband, offered their
services in settling the estate of Evelyn’s deceased mother.
They would prepare an extrajudicial settlement, while Evelyn’s
brother Engr Arquero would conduct the survey of the estate.
b. Leticia had paid the spouses P49,800 and when they repeatedly
demanded the approved survey plan, they were asked to pay
for another P20K.
c. Leticia subsequently learned that the spouses had no authority
to settle her deceased mother’s estate as Atty Molina was an
employee of DAR and Evelyn was an ordinary court employee.
3. Evelyn (respondent) in her comment:
a. It was complainant who came to respondent’s house and
requested that she convince her brother to partition the 4 lots
left by her parents. After Engr. Arquero conducted the survey,
complainant was nowhere to be found and respondent
shouldered the expense.
b. Without her knowledge, complainant filed for partition of estate
before the RTC but when it was dismissed, complainant asked
respondent to intervene so they met at respondent’s house
where she pleaded for Evelyn to prepare the extrajudicial
settlement.
c. As respondent agreed to help, she called her brother to bring
the plan he had previously done. In the presence of Engr.
Arquero, complainant and her siblings chose their respective
shares in the property.
d. In 2003, complainant, Ester, and a sales agent came to
respondent’s house asking for a resurvey for the boundary lines
were no longer visible and because the new (2 nd) buyer wanted
to see the exact location and boundaries of the lot.
e. Admits receiving P49,800 and that she had turned over the
notarized extrajudicial settlement, blueprint of the plan, deed of
sale between complainant and Rubio.
that Evelyn was not a lawyer since they are neighbors and are
related to each other.
4. VICE EXECUTIVE JUDGE, RTC LEGAZPI CITY
a. Evelyn committed simple misconduct. Fine of 2mos of salaray
deducted from retirement benefits.
b. Evelyn’s liability of P49,800 to Leticia can be properly ventilated
in a separate judicial proceeding.
5. OCA
a. Simple misconduct, fine of 4mos salary deducted from
retirement benefits.
6. In her Manifestation, respondent informed the Court that a case against
complainant for a sum of money + damages was filed against her in the
MTCC and the court ruled in favor of Dominguez (first buyer of land).
Respondent wanted the Court to note that neither complainant nor
Dominguez mentioned the participation of respondent or her brother in
the transaction involving the lot.
Issue: W/N respondent is guilty of simple misconduct?
Held: YES
1. It bears to note that respondent admitted in her comment that she
prepared and finalized the extrajudicial settlement of the estate – which
constitutes practice of law1. Not being a lawyer, respondent had no
authority to do so. Worse, she also admitted receiving money for her
services.
2. 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.
Dispositive Portion: GUILTY of SIMPLE MISCONDUCT. FINE of 4 mos salary
to be deducted from her retirement benefits.
1 Any activity, in or out of court, which requires the application of law, legal procedure, knowledge,
training and experience.