Ramirez v. Racho
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Julie O. Ramirez filed a complaint against respondent Fernando G. Racho, Branch Clerk of Court, MTC, Branch 21, Manila, for gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Complainant alleged that respondent failed to stamp "certified xerox copies" on reproduced documents she requested and paid for, which led to the denial of her Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition by the Supreme Court. Procedural History: Respondent Racho, in his comment, claimed he instructed the stenographer to photocopy the documents and directed the complainant's representative to pay the fee. He assumed the representative would return for the certification, and thus blamed the representative for the omission. The administrative complaint was referred to Executive Judge Thelma A. Ponferrada for investigation. Judge Ponferrada recommended dismissal as the complainant could no longer be served notice at her given address, which had been demolished, and notices sent by mail were returned unclaimed. However, the Court Administrator recommended disciplinary action, finding a basis for liability as the documents were requested and paid for as certified copies. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution after the Court Administrator recommended disciplinary action and subsequently proposed a fine of P2,000.00.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Fernando G. Racho, as Branch Clerk of Court, was guilty of gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for failing to stamp "certified xerox copies" on requested documents. Whether the actions of the complainant's representative absolved the respondent of liability.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the recommendation of the Court Administrator, ordering respondent Fernando G. Racho to pay a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00), with a stern warning against repetition of similar acts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross neglect of duty and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service: The Court found respondent liable. It was established that complainant Ramirez requested certified copies of documents and paid the corresponding fees. The respondent's failure to stamp the reproduced documents as "certified xerox copies" was a direct contravention of his duties as Clerk of Court. The Court emphasized that under Section 11, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court, a mandated duty of the clerk of court is to prepare certified copies of any paper, record, order, judgment, or entry in his office for the prescribed fees. This duty is crucial for the proper administration of justice and ensuring that parties receive the documents they require for their legal actions. The failure to discharge this duty, regardless of the reason, constitutes negligence. On whether the actions of the complainant's representative absolved the respondent of liability: The Court found the respondent's defense untenable and indicative of ignorance of his basic duties. The respondent's assertion that the complainant's representative should bear the blame for not returning to have the documents stamped was rejected. The Court reiterated that the clerk of court is obligated to exercise supervision and ensure that requests for certified copies are properly attended to and fully granted if warranted under the rules. The responsibility lies with the clerk of court to devise a system that ensures strict compliance with his duties, including providing proper instructions to subordinates or ensuring the certification process is completed. The failure to do so cannot be shifted to the complainant's representative, as the primary duty rests with the respondent.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk of Court is mandated to prepare certified copies of court records upon request and payment of fees, and failure to do so constitutes negligence, irrespective of the actions of the complainant's representative.