Madrid v. Ramirez

A.M. No. P-94-1039 (March 6, 1996)

Facts:

The case involves a complaint filed by Judge Fe Albano-Madrid against Atty. Raymundo Ramirez, the Branch Clerk of Court V of the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan, Isabela. The complaint arose from Ramirez's alleged violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92, which mandates the issuance of official receipts for cash bail bonds received by court personnel.

On October 7, 1993, Ramirez received a cash bail bond amounting to P17,000.00 from Jovita Bernardo, who was accused in a criminal case pending before Judge Albano-Madrid's sala. Following this, Judge Albano-Madrid issued an order on December 7, 1993, directing Ramirez to submit the official receipt for the cash bond. Ramirez failed to comply, prompting another order on January 6, 1994, requiring him to explain his non-compliance. Instead of providing the official receipt, Ramirez sent a current account deposit slip indicating that he had deposited the cash bond into the Land Bank of the Philippines.

In a subsequent letter dated January 20, 1994, Ramirez explained that it was the practice in his court to deposit cash bonds immediately into the bank and provide the accused with a copy of the deposit slip along with the approved bail bond. Judge Albano-Madrid found this explanation unsatisfactory, leading to the formal complaint against Ramirez.

During the investigation, Ramirez claimed that he accepted the cash bail bond in the absence of the Executive Clerk of Court and that he had opened a current account in the name of the Regional Trial Court for such deposits. The case was referred to Vice Executive Judge Senen C. Casibang for investigation, who initially recommended exoneration for Ramirez, stating that the failure to issue an official receipt could not be attributed to him as he was not the custodian of such receipts.

However, the Court Administrator disagreed with this recommendation, arguing that Ramirez had overstepped his authority by accepting the cash bail bond and should have referred the matter to the Clerk of Court. The case was then remanded for a formal hearing, which revealed that Ramirez had delayed the deposit of the cash bond for over ten days and had not followed the proper procedures outlined in the Supreme Court Circular.

Legal Issues:

1. Did Atty. Raymundo Ramirez violate Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 by failing to issue an official receipt for the cash bail bond received?
2. Was Ramirez authorized to accept the cash bail bond in the absence of the Executive Clerk of Court?
3. What administrative sanctions, if any, should be imposed on Ramirez for his actions?

Arguments:

• Complainant's Arguments:

  • Judge Albano-Madrid argued that Ramirez's practice of not issuing an official receipt for the cash bail bond was contrary to Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 and could lead to misappropriation of funds.
  • She maintained that the responsibility for fiduciary collections lies with the Clerk of Court, and Ramirez's actions were unauthorized.

• Respondent's Arguments:

  • Ramirez contended that he acted in accordance with the practice in his court and that he had opened a current account for the Regional Trial Court to deposit cash bonds.
  • He claimed that the failure to issue an official receipt was not his fault, as he was not the custodian of the receipts, and he had acted in the absence of the Executive Clerk of Court.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court ultimately sided with the Court Administrator's recommendation, finding that Ramirez had indeed violated Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92. The court emphasized that the circular clearly delineates the responsibilities of the Clerk of Court regarding fiduciary collections, which Ramirez had overstepped by accepting the cash bail bond directly.

The court noted that Ramirez's failure to issue an official receipt was a significant breach of protocol, as it undermined the accountability required in handling court funds. The court also highlighted that Ramirez's delay in depositing the cash bond and his inconsistent explanations further demonstrated a lack of adherence to the established procedures.

As a result, the court ordered Ramirez to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and issued a stern warning that any future violations would be dealt with more severely.

Significant Legal Principles or Doctrines Established:

1. Responsibility for Fiduciary Collections: The case reinforces the principle that the Clerk of Court is the designated custodian of official receipts and fiduciary collections, and any deviation from this responsibility can lead to administrative sanctions.
2. Compliance with Supreme Court Circulars: The decision underscores the importance of adhering to Supreme Court Circulars, which are designed to ensure proper management and accountability of court funds.
3. Administrative Accountability: The ruling illustrates that court personnel must act within their authority and follow established procedures to maintain the integrity of the judicial system.