ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1996 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 91935 March 4, 1996 - RODOLFO QUIAMBAO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106043 March 4, 1996 - CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY LANDLESS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109645 March 4, 1996 - ORTIGAS AND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. TIRSO VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115365 March 4, 1996 - ESMENIO MADLOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118126 March 4, 1996 - TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-921 March 5, 1996 - AMPARO A. LACHICA v. ROLANDO A. FLORDELIZA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1009 March 5, 1996 - ALBERTO NALDOZA v. JUAN LAVILLES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 111501 March 5, 1996 - PHIL. FUJI XEROX CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 113930 March 5, 1996 - PAUL G. ROBERTS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115548 March 5, 1996 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1039 March 6, 1996 - FE ALBANO MADRID v. RAYMUNDO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. Nos. 112858-59 March 6, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RALPHY ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120193 March 6, 1996 - LUIS MALALUAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. CBD-174 March 7, 1996 - GIOVANI M. IGUAL v. ROLANDO S. JAVIER

  • G.R. No. 66555 March 7, 1996 - LEONCIO MEJARES, ET AL. v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 95353-54 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO PAT

  • G.R. No. 109390 March 7, 1996 - JGB and ASSOCIATES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112445 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS V. PATROLLA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 113710 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND V. JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116011 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RHODESA B. SILAN

  • G.R. No. 117650 March 7, 1996 - SULPICIO LINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120905 March 7, 1996 - RENATO U. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95260 March 8, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO C. PRADO

  • G.R. No. 110983 March 8, 1996 - REYNALDO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2024 March 11, 1996 - SALVADOR T. CASTILLO v. PABLO M. TAGUINES

  • G.R. No. 108625 March 11, 1996 - ALLIANCE OF DEMOCRATIC FREE LABOR ORGANIZATION v. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113194 March 11, 1996 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119381 March 11, 1996 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. JOSE BRILLANTES

  • G.R. No. 96882 March 12, 1996 - EUTIQUIANO PAGARA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109800 March 12, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO N. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 114388 March 12, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO TRILLES, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-4-156 March 13, 1996 - IN RE: FERNANDO P. AGDAMAG

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1344 March 13, 1996 - VERONICA GONZALES v. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

  • G.R. No. 101332 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLARO BERNAL

  • G.R. No. 101699 March 13, 1996 - BENJAMIN A. SANTOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104088-89 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE JAIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 108743 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNALDO B. DONES

  • G.R. No. 112193 March 13, 1996 - JOSE E. ARUEGO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112546 March 13, 1996 - NORTH DAVAO MINING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119073 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 120223 March 13, 1996 - RAMON Y. ALBA v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101070 March 14, 1996 - BALAYAN COLLEGES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102062 March 14, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO FERRER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104685 March 14, 1996 - SABENA BELGIAN WORLD AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119706 March 14, 1996 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73592 March 15, 1996 - JOSE CUENCO BORROMEO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94494 March 15, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO C. LAPURA

  • G.R. No. 103695 March 15, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105819 March 15, 1996 - MARILYN L. BERNARDO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106229-30 March 15, 1996 - LEOVIGILDO ROSALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108001 March 15, 1996 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111651 March 15, 1996 - OSMALIK S. BUSTAMANTE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115106 March 15, 1996 - ROBERTO L. DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114988 March 18, 1996 - CATALINO BONTIA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 117667 March 18, 1996 - INLAND TRAILWAYS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • Adm. Matter No. 94-5-42-MTC March 20, 1996 - QUERY OF JUDGE DANILO M. TENERIFE

  • G.R. No. 102360 March 20, 1996 - ROSITA DOMINGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111656 March 20, 1996 - MANUEL MANAHAN, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116665 March 20, 1996 - MELQUIADES D. AZCUNA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-1-07-RTC March 21, 1996 - JDF ANOMALY IN THE RTC OF LIGAO, ALBAY

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-10-06-SCC March 27, 1996 - IN RE: DEMASIRA M. BAUTE

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1071 March 28, 1996 - ELIZABETH ASUMBRADO v. FRANCISCO R. MACUNO

  • G.R. No. 104386 March 28, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR L. LEVISTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121424 March 28, 1996 - IN RE: MAURO P. MAGTIBAY v. VICENTE VINARAO

  • G.R. No. 90215 March 29, 1996 - ERNESTO ZALDARRIAGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94594 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO REDULOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96178-79 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ESMAQUILAN

  • G.R. No. 97785 March 29, 1996 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 99259-60 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO D. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 103525 March 29, 1996 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104296 March 29, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 106083-84 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUINTIN T. GARRAEZ

  • G.R. No. 106600 March 29, 1996 - COSMOS BOTTLING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109312 March 29, 1996 - PLACIDO MIRANDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109614-15 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRONICO GREGORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112346 March 29, 1996 - EVELYN YONAHA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112457-58 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO CARTUANO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112678 March 29, 1996 - EDUARDO M . ESPEJO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112708-09 March 29, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112718 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VLADIMIR L. CANUZO

  • G.R. Nos. 113519-20 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO F. PANLILIO

  • G.R. Nos. 114263-64 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN JENN PORRAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115988 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEO V. LIAN

  • G.R. No. 116734 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY B. LAURENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116792 March 29, 1996 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117055 March 29, 1996 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 117618 March 29, 1996 - VIRGINIA MALINAO v. LUISITO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118509 March 29, 1996 - LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118870 March 29, 1996 - NERISSA Z. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119193 March 29, 1996 - NEMENCIO GALVEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120715 March 29, 1996 - FERNANDO R. SAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121527 March 29, 1996 - MARCELO L. ONGSITCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  




     
     

    Adm. Matter No. P-94-1039   March 6, 1996 - FE ALBANO MADRID v. RAYMUNDO RAMIREZ

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [Adm. Matter No. P-94-1039. March 6, 1996.]

    JUDGE FE ALBANO MADRID, Complainant, v. ATTY. RAYMUNDO RAMIREZ, of Court V, Regional Court of Ilagan, Isabela, Respondent.


    SYLLABUS


    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; SUPREME COURT CIRCULAR NO. 13-92; GUIDELINES TO BE FOLLOWED IN MAKING DEPOSITS OR WITHDRAWALS OF ALL COLLECTIONS FROM BAILBONDS, RENTAL DEPOSITS AND OTHER FIDUCIARY COLLECTIONS; NOT COMPLIED WITH IN CASE AT BAR. — Clearly, Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 was not complied with. As correctly observed by Judge Casibang and respondent Atty. Ramirez, the circular was addressed to executive judges and clerks of court. It goes without saying, that fiduciary collections ought to be the responsibility of the clerk of court, not the branch clerk of court. This is to ensure that all moneys received in trust are duly accounted for. Judge Madrid is correct. Respondent’s practice is not sanctioned by Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92. We cannot allow it. The records show that respondent accepted the cash deposit and he was aware that the money should be immediately deposited to authorized depository bank. He did not. His own evidence shows that he deposited the money more than ten (10) days later, or on October 19, 1993. By his own admission, too, he knew that an official receipt should be issued by the Clerk of Court. Yet, earlier on, when he was required to submit the official receipt but could not present any, respondent gave a different reason to the complainant. He was categorical that it is their practice to immediately deposit the money to the Land Bank and then present the deposit slip to the executive judge for the approval of the undertaking. Respondent made no reference whatsoever on the necessity of issuing the receipt. Neither has he shown any proof that on that particular date, October 7, 1993, and the days and months that followed, the Clerk of Court did not report for work. To be sure, respondent conveniently puts the blame on the Clerk of Court’s alleged frequent absences to avoid responsibility for his unauthorized practice of accepting the cash bailbond. We can deduce this from the fact that he received the money on October 7, 1993. The order for the submission of the official receipt was made two (2) months later, particularly on December 7, 1993. In the interregnum, he could have secured the official receipt but he still failed to do so. The mere fact that Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 is addressed to Executive Judges and Clerks of Court, will not exculpate respondent from administrative sanction for its violation. With more reason, he should have turned over the money to the Clerk of Court and made sure that the official receipt therefor has been issued since the latter is the custodial of official receipts and fiduciary collections of the court.


    D E C I S I O N


    PUNO, J.:


    The present controversy arose from a complaint filed by Judge Fe Albano-Madrid of the Regional Trial Court (Branch XXI), Santiago, Isabela, against Branch Clerk of Court Raymundo Ramirez of Branch XVIII of the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan, Isabela, for his alleged violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92, dated March 1, 1992.

    The undisputed facts show that, on October 7, 1993, respondent received a cash bailbond, in the amount of seventeen thousand pesos (P17,000.00), from a certain Jovita Bernardo, the accused in a criminal case 1 which was pending before the sala of the complaint.

    In an Order, dated December 7, 1993, respondent was directed by complainant to submit the corresponding official receipt evidencing the posting of said cash bond. Respondent did not submit any. Hence, in an Order, dated January 6, 1994, respondent was made to explain why he should not be cited for contempt or administratively charged for not complying with the order of the court. 2 Again, respondent did not submit the required official receipt. Instead, he sent by registered mail a copy of a current account deposit slip, showing that he deposited the money to the Land Bank of the Philippines (Ilagan-Isabela Branch). 3

    On January 18, 1994, complainant issued another order, specifying that respondent should submit the official receipt issued by the court for fiduciary funds received by the Clerk of Court. In a letter 4 addressed to complainant, dated January 20, 1994, respondent explained that the procedure observed in his court when receiving cash bond deposited by an accused is "to immediately deposit the same to the Land Bank of the Philippines" and give a copy of the current account deposit slip to the accused together with a copy of the bailbond duly approved by the Presiding Judge.

    Complainant found respondent’s explanation unacceptable. Hence, the present complaint. She alleges that respondent’s practice is not in accord with Supreme Court Circular 13-92 and, if tolerated, the same would be conducive to misappropriation because of the non-issuance of the official receipt.

    In his comment, respondent explains, albeit belatedly, that he opened Current Account No. 1072-1017-54 with Land Bank, in the name of the Regional Trial Court, as evidenced by a certification 5 issued by the bank, dated March 16, 1994. He clarifies that he is a branch clerk of court and should not be faulted for the non-issuance of the official receipt since it is the Executive Clerk of Court who is the custodian of the official receipts. He reiterates that it is their practice to deposit cash bonds to the nearest Land Bank branch, in compliance with Administrative Circular No. 5-93, 6 dated April 30, 1993, amending Circular No. 5, dated February 23, 1985. The Deed of Undertaking would then be approved by Hon. Juan Bigornia, Jr., the Executive Judge, and, thereafter, a copy of the approved cash bond and the Deed of Undertaking is given to the accused.

    Considering the allegations of both parties, we referred the case to then Vice Executive Judge Senen C. Casibang of the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan, Isabela, Branch 17, for investigation, report and recommendation. 7

    During the initial investigation, respondent alleged, for the first time, that he received the subject cash bailbond for and in the absence of the Executive Clerk of Court and, pursuant to Supreme Court Circular No. 5-93, dated April 30, 1993, deposited said amount to the nearest Land Bank branch. Consequently, Judge Casibang recommended that respondent be exonerated from the charge against him. 8

    We remanded the case to Judge Casibang for re-investigation in view of his failure to conduct a formal hearing of the case. 9 The Office of the Court Administrator noted that complainant was not duly subpoenaed and his 2-page report was based only on the evidence adduced by Respondent. 10 In compliance with our resolution, the formal hearing respondent was conducted on August 18, 1995. 11 In his Report, 12 dated September 26, 1995, Judge Casibang made the following findings and recommendation:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "FINDINGS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Weighing the evidence presented and the testimonies/arguments advanced by the complainant and the respondent, it is crystal clear that Account No. 1072-1017-54, where the cash bond put up by the accused Jovita Bernardo and received by the respondent for her provisional liberty, is the account of the RTC, Branch XVIII, and not the personal account of the Respondent. . . The undersigned also noticed that Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 is addressed to Executive Judges and Clerks of Court directing them to issue receipts for money received by them in trust. The respondent is a Branch Clerk of Court assigned to the RTC, Branch XVIII and not the Clerk of Court who is the custodian of official receipts. Thus, the failure of the respondent to issue official receipt when he received the cash bond put up by the accused could not be taken against him as violative to the Circular of the Honorable Supreme Court. In passing, undersigned also noted that the respondent, ATTY. RAYMUNDO A. RAMIREZ, is a Branch Clerk of Court and not an accountable officer as defined and recited under the provisions of the 1987 Constitution. (Emphasis ours)

    RECOMMENDATIONS:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    In view of the foregoing, the undersigned hereby recommends that respondent, Atty. RAYMUNDO A. RAMIREZ, be EXONERATED from the charge filed against him."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The Court Administrator disagreed with the foregoing recommendation on the ground that respondent arrogated upon himself the functions of the Clerk of Court when he accepted the cash bailbond. According to the Court Administrator, respondent should have desisted from accepting the cash deposit and, instead, referred the accused to the office of the Clerk of Court. Hence, he recommended that respondent be ordered to pay a fine of P1,000.00, with stern warning that a repetition of the same act shall be dealt with more severely.

    We agree with the Court Administrator.

    Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92, dated March 1, 1992, enumerates the guidelines to be followed in making deposits or withdrawals of all collections from bailbonds, rental deposits and other fiduciary collections, viz:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "CIRCULAR NO. 19-92

    "To: All Executive Judges and Clerks of Court of the Regional Trial

    Courts and Shari’a District Courts.

    "Subject: Court Fiduciary Funds

    x       x       x


    ". . . The following procedure is, therefore, prescribed in the administration of Court Fiduciary Funds:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Guidelines in Making Deposits:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "1) Deposits shall be made under a savings account. Current account can also be maintained provided that it is on automatic transfer of account from savings.

    "2) Deposits shall be made in the name of the Court.

    "3) The Clerk of Court shall be the custodian of the Passbook to be issued by the depository bank and shall advise the Executive Judge of the bank’s name, branch and savings/current account number.

    "Guidelines in Making Withdrawals

    "1) Withdrawal slips shall be signed by the Executive Judge and countersigned by the Clerk of Court.

    "2) In maintaining a current account, withdrawals shall be made by checks. Signatories on the checks shall likewise be the Executive Judge and the Clerk of Court.

    "All collections from bailbonds, rental deposits and other fiduciary collections shall be deposited immediately by the Clerk of Court concerned, upon receipt thereof, with an authorized government depository bank.

    "x       x       x"

    Clearly, the foregoing circular was not complied with. As correctly observed by Judge Casibang and respondent Atty. Ramirez, the circular was addressed to executive judges and clerks of court. It goes without saying, that fiduciary collections ought to be the responsibility of the clerk of court, not the branch clerk of court. This is to ensure that all moneys received in trust are duly accounted for. Judge Madrid is correct. Respondent’s practice is not sanctioned by Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92. We cannot allow it.

    The records show that respondent accepted the cash deposit and he was aware that the money should be immediately deposited to authorized depository bank. He did not. His own evidence shows that he deposited the money more than ten (10) days later, or on October 19, 1993. By his own admission, too, he knew that an official receipt should be issued by the Clerk of Court. He testified as follows: 13

    COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    You said you deposited the amount of P17,000.00 which you received as cash bond from accused Jovita Bernardo, when did you receive this amount?

    "ATTY. RAMIREZ:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I can no longer remember, Your Honor.

    "COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    You cannot remember. How many days from receipt of this amount did you deposit to the Bank?

    "ATTY. RAMIREZ:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    More or less, ten (10) days, Your Honor.

    "COURT:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Why did it take you that long to deposit it to the Land Bank considering that the Land Bank is only about three (3) kilometers away from this building?

    "ATTY. RAMIREZ:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I was waiting for the issuance of the official receipt. So, when I can no longer wait for the official receipt, even without the official receipt, I deposited it already to the Land Bank."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Yet, earlier on, when he was required to submit the official receipt but could not present any, respondent gave a different reason to the complainant. He was categorical that it is their practice to immediately deposit the money to the Land Bank and then present the deposit slip to the executive judge for the approval of the undertaking. Respondent made no reference whatsoever on the necessity of issuing the receipt. Neither has he shown any proof that on that particular date, October 7, 1993, and the days and months that followed, the Clerk of Court did not report for work.

    To be sure, respondent conveniently puts the blame on the Clerk of Court’s alleged frequent absences to avoid responsibility for his unauthorized practice of accepting the cash bailbond. We can deduce this from the fact that he received the money on October 7, 1993. The order for the submission of the official receipt was made two (2) months later, particularly on December 7, 1993. In the interregnum, he could have secured the official receipt but he still failed to do so.

    The mere fact that Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 is addressed to Executive Judges and Clerks of Court, will not exculpate respondent from administrative sanction for its violation. With more reason, he should have turned over the money to the Clerk of Court and made sure that the official receipt therefor has been issued since the latter is the custodian of official receipts and fiduciary collections of the court.

    One final word. We commend Judge Fe Albano-Madrid for showing her concern on the proper compliance with the circulars issued by this Court by bringing this matter to our attention. If not for her, the unauthorized practice of respondent would have remained unchecked.

    IN VIEW WHEREOF, we AFFIRM the recommendation of the Court Administrator. ATTY. RAYMUNDO A. RAMIREZ is ordered to pay a FINE in the amount of one thousand pesos (P1,000.00), with stern WARNING, that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.

    Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan, Isabela, who is hereby ordered to ensure that all fiduciary collections of the court are duly receipted and deposited by the Clerk of Court pursuant to Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92.

    SO ORDERED.

    Regalado, J., Romero and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 1330 to 1346, an action for violation of BP Blg. 22 entitled, "People v. Jovita Bernardo."cralaw virtua1aw library

    2. Marked as Exhibits "A" and "B" ; Rollo, pp. 35-36.

    3. Rollo, p. 37.

    4. Rollo, p. 41.

    5. Rollo, p. 7.

    6. This circular refers to the rules governing the administration of the Judiciary Development Fund and specifies the Land Bank of the Philippines as the depository bank for the fund.

    7. Resolution, dated June 22, 1994; Rollo, p. 17.

    8. Report, dated December 5, 1994; Rollo, pp. 21-22.

    9. Resolution, dated June 28, 1995; Rollo, pp. 33-34.

    10. Ibid.

    11. Rollo, p. 44.

    12. Rollo, pp. 67-69.

    13. TSN, August 18, 1995, pp. 19-20.

    Adm. Matter No. P-94-1039   March 6, 1996 - FE ALBANO MADRID v. RAYMUNDO RAMIREZ




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED