Madrid v. Ramirez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Judge Fe Albano-Madrid filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Raymundo Ramirez, Branch Clerk of Court V, for alleged violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92. Respondent received a cash bailbond of P17,000.00 from Jovita Bernardo, an accused in a BP Blg. 22 case pending before the complainant's sala. Procedural History: Respondent was directed by the complainant to submit an official receipt for the bailbond, which he failed to do. Instead, he submitted a deposit slip showing the money was deposited to the Land Bank. He explained that the practice in his court was to immediately deposit cash bonds to the Land Bank and provide the accused with a copy of the deposit slip and the approved bailbond. Complainant found this unacceptable, alleging it was not in accord with Circular No. 13-92 and conducive to misappropriation due to the non-issuance of an official receipt. The case was referred for investigation. Initially, the investigating judge recommended exoneration, finding that the circular was addressed to Clerks of Court, not Branch Clerks of Court, and the account used was that of the RTC, not respondent's personal account. However, the case was remanded for a formal hearing. After the hearing, the investigating judge reiterated his recommendation for exoneration. The Court Administrator disagreed, recommending a fine of P1,000.00 with a stern warning, finding that respondent arrogated upon himself the functions of the Clerk of Court. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the findings and recommendations.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Raymundo Ramirez violated Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 by accepting and depositing a cash bailbond without issuing an official receipt through the Clerk of Court. Whether the respondent, as a Branch Clerk of Court, is accountable for the proper handling of fiduciary collections despite the circular being addressed to Executive Judges and Clerks of Court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the recommendation of the Court Administrator, ordering Atty. Raymundo Ramirez to pay a fine of P1,000.00 with a stern warning against repetition of similar acts. The Court also directed the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan, Isabela, to ensure that all fiduciary collections are duly receipted and deposited by the Clerk of Court pursuant to Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92: The Court found that Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 clearly prescribes a procedure for the administration of Court Fiduciary Funds, including guidelines for deposits. These guidelines mandate that deposits shall be made in the name of the Court and that the Clerk of Court shall be the custodian of the passbook. The circular explicitly states that all collections from bailbonds and other fiduciary collections shall be deposited immediately by the Clerk of Court concerned upon receipt thereof. The respondent's practice of accepting the cash deposit and delaying its deposit for more than ten (10) days, and his failure to secure an official receipt from the Clerk of Court, directly contravened these prescribed procedures. The Court emphasized that the purpose of these procedures is to ensure that all moneys received in trust are duly accounted for, thereby preventing misappropriation. On the accountability of the respondent as a Branch Clerk of Court: While acknowledging that Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 is addressed to Executive Judges and Clerks of Court, the Supreme Court held that this does not exculpate the respondent from administrative sanction. The Court reasoned that fiduciary collections ought to be the responsibility of the Clerk of Court, and by extension, all court personnel involved in the process. The respondent, as a Branch Clerk of Court, should have turned over the money to the Clerk of Court and ensured that the official receipt was issued, as the Clerk of Court is the designated custodian of official receipts and fiduciary collections. His unauthorized practice of accepting the cash bailbond and his inconsistent explanations regarding the delay in deposit and the issuance of receipts demonstrated a disregard for established rules and procedures, making him liable. The Court noted that the respondent's claim of waiting for the issuance of the official receipt was contradicted by his earlier statement that it was their practice to immediately deposit the money and then present the deposit slip, indicating a convenient shifting of blame.
Main Doctrine
A Branch Clerk of Court, while not the custodian of official receipts for fiduciary collections, is still accountable for ensuring that such collections are properly receipted and deposited by the Clerk of Court, and cannot unilaterally deviate from established procedures by accepting cash bailbonds and delaying their deposit.