Facts:

This case involves an administrative complaint filed by Leticia A. Arienda (the complainant) against Evelyn A. Monilla (the respondent), a Court Stenographer III at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4 in Legazpi City. The dispute arose from events that began on January 13, 2002, when the spouses Monilla (Evelyn and her husband, Atty. Zaldy Monilla) approached Arienda at her residence, offering legal assistance in settling the estate of Arienda's deceased mother. They proposed to prepare an extrajudicial settlement for Arienda and her siblings, while Atty. Monilla's brother, Engineer Matias A. Arquero, would survey the property. Throughout this arrangement, the complainant paid a total of ₱49,800 to the spouses Monilla for various services rendered.

Arienda claimed that despite her repeated requests for the approved survey plan from Engr. Arquero, the spouses failed to provide the necessary documents, insisting she pay an outstanding balance of ₱20,000 before they wo

...

Facts:

Background of the Complaint

• Complainant Leticia A. Arienda filed an administrative complaint for conduct unbecoming a court employee and abuse of authority against respondent Evelyn A. Monilla, a Court Stenographer III at the RTC, Branch 4 of Legazpi City.
• The underlying incident involved the preparation and finalization of an extrajudicial settlement of the estate of complainant’s deceased mother, allegedly rendered by the spouses Monilla (Evelyn and her husband, Atty. Zaldy Monilla).

Allegations by Complainant

• On January 13, 2002, the spouses Monilla visited complainant’s residence offering their services to settle the estate of complainant’s deceased mother.
• They promised to prepare an extrajudicial settlement for complainant and her siblings, with Engineer Matias A. Arquero conducting the survey of the property.
• Complainant made several partial payments amounting to a total of P49,800.00, as evidenced by six Temporary Receipts.
• Complainant repeatedly requested for the approved survey plan, but the spouses demanded an additional payment of P20,000.00 prior to releasing the document, which raised concerns over their authority and conduct.
• Complainant later discovered that Atty. Monilla was employed as a DAR employee and that respondent was not a lawyer but a court employee, thereby questioning the legitimacy of the services rendered.

Respondent’s Counter-Narrative and Account

• Respondent claimed that the initial request came from complainant and her sister in December 2000, seeking assistance to partition the four lots inherited from their parents.
• Although the respondent was initially reluctant—citing complainant’s notorious reputation—her husband, upon learning of the familial relation, urged her to help.
• Respondent denied that she and her husband had offered services unsolicited but instead stated that she was approached to liaise with her brother, Engr. Arquero, for the partition survey.
• She narrated that she eventually conceded after the complainant and her siblings faced financial and legal difficulties, thereby leading her to prepare and finalize the extrajudicial settlement in the presence of Engr. Arquero.
• Respondent acknowledged receiving various payments from complainant:
• P25,000.00 for documents prepared by Atty. Monilla, including deeds of sale, copies of the extrajudicial settlement, contracts to sell, authorities to sell, and a demand letter.
• P24,800.00 for the services of Engr. Arquero in subdividing Lot No. 5489 into 13 lots.
• Despite contesting some aspects of the transaction, respondent admitted to processing and handing over the notarized extrajudicial settlement, the blueprint of the subdivision plan, and a deed of sale (which later became problematic due to the non-approved status of the survey plan).

Relevant Circumstances Surrounding the Case

• Complainant and her siblings, after a series of unfinished transactions and broken promises, initiated further legal actions including a case for partition before the RTC, which was later dismissed.
• The extrajudicial settlement prepared by respondent later became a focal point as its preparation was akin to the practice of law—a service reserved exclusively for lawyers.
• An investigation was initiated by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and an Investigating Judge (Pedro R. Soriao) was designated to look into the matter.
• The findings recommended administrative penalties and indicated that the monetary issue of P49,800.00 could be addressed separately in a judicial proceeding.
• Additional factors include civil litigation involving a third party (Marlyn Dominguez) where respondent sought to clarify that such matters did not involve her, although this did not mitigate the misconduct allegations.

Issue:

Whether or not Evelyn A. Monilla, as a non-lawyer and court employee, engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing and finalizing an extrajudicial settlement of estate.

• Does the preparation and finalization of an extrajudicial settlement, on top of receiving payments for these services, constitute misconduct owing to the necessity of legal qualifications?
• To what extent does her conduct, which may lead the public to misinterpret her authority, breach the ethical standards required of court personnel?

• Whether the separate civil matter involving other parties (e.g., Dominguez’s case) has any bearing on the assessment of respondent’s administrative liability and the severity of the misconduct.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)