Ramirez v. Racho

A.M. No. P-96-1213 (August 1, 1996)

Facts:

The case involves a complaint filed by Julie O. Ramirez against Fernando G. Racho, the Branch Clerk of Court at the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 21, Manila. The complaint alleges gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Ramirez requested certified copies of documents related to Civil Case No. 126749-CV and paid the required fees. However, Racho failed to stamp the documents as "certified xerox copies," which led to the denial of Ramirez's Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition by the higher court due to the absence of certified copies of the annexed documents.

In his defense, Racho claimed that he promptly instructed the court stenographer to photocopy the requested documents and directed Ramirez's representative to pay the corresponding fees. He assumed that the representative would return to have the documents stamped as certified copies. Racho argued that the responsibility for the failure to obtain the certification lay with the representative of Ramirez, and he contended that the official receipts attached to the documents served as proof that they were indeed certified copies.

The administrative complaint was referred to Executive Judge Thelma A. Ponferrada for investigation. During the investigation, it was noted that attempts to serve notices to Ramirez were unsuccessful, as her address was no longer valid. Despite the recommendation from Judge Ponferrada to dismiss the complaint, the Court Administrator suggested disciplinary action against Racho, citing his failure to provide the requested certified copies.

Legal Issues:

1. Whether Fernando G. Racho, as the Branch Clerk of Court, committed gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
2. Whether Racho's defense that the responsibility lay with Ramirez's representative is valid.

Arguments:

• Complainant's Argument (Julie O. Ramirez):

  • Ramirez argued that she paid for certified copies of documents and that Racho's failure to stamp them as certified copies directly resulted in the denial of her legal petition. She contended that the clerk of court has a duty to ensure that requests for certified copies are properly fulfilled.

• Respondent's Argument (Fernando G. Racho):

  • Racho claimed that he acted promptly by instructing his staff to photocopy the documents and assumed that the representative would return for certification. He argued that the representative's failure to return absolved him of responsibility. Additionally, he pointed out that the official receipts indicated the documents were certified.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court upheld the findings and recommendations of the Court Administrator, concluding that Racho's defense was untenable. The court emphasized that the clerk of court has a mandated duty to provide certified copies of court records upon request, as outlined in the Rules of Court. The court noted that the clerk of court is responsible for ensuring that all requests for certified copies are properly attended to, as failure to do so could adversely affect the rights of the requesting party.

The court found that Racho's assumption that the representative would return for certification demonstrated negligence. It was determined that the responsibility for ensuring the proper certification of the documents lay with Racho, not with Ramirez's representative. The court highlighted the importance of the clerk of court's role in the judicial system and the necessity for diligence in fulfilling administrative duties.

As a result, the court imposed a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) on Racho, with a stern warning that any future similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

1. The clerk of court has a fundamental duty to provide certified copies of court records upon request, as mandated by the Rules of Court.
2. The responsibility for ensuring compliance with requests for certified copies lies with the clerk of court, and negligence in this duty can lead to disciplinary action.
3. The conduct of court personnel is crucial to the proper administration of justice, and any failure in their duties can adversely affect the rights of litigants.