A.M. No. P-08-2418, December 4, 2012
Ferdinand S. Bascos, Complainant, vs. Raymundo A. Ramirez, Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Ilagan, Isabela, Respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case originated from a complaint filed by Ferdinand S. Bascos against Atty. Raymundo A. Ramirez, Clerk of Court and Ex-Officio Provincial Sheriff, for neglect of duty and violation of circulars related to the publication of foreclosure notices under P.D. 1079. The initial complaint alleged that respondent failed to conduct a raffle for the publication of extra-judicial foreclosure notices, showing partiality by awarding them to a specific newspaper. The Executive Judge, Juan A. Bigornia, Jr., directed respondent to submit specific documents and to henceforth conduct raffles for such notices. Respondent ignored these directives. In a prior Decision dated January 31, 2008, this Court found respondent guilty of dereliction and gross neglect of duty, fining him P20,000 and ordering him to submit the documents required by Judge Bigornia.
Respondent paid the fine but failed to fully comply with the documentary order. He submitted only a partial list of foreclosure applications and claimed an inability to produce the complete records because the deputy sheriffs involved had died and his role was merely ministerial. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that the submitted memorandum was incomplete, lacking the required publication details, and that respondent’s justifications were insufficient.

ISSUE

Whether respondent is administratively liable for his continued failure to comply with the Court’s lawful order to submit the required documents.

RULING

Yes, respondent is guilty of grave misconduct warranting dismissal. The Court found that respondent’s explanations for non-compliance were unacceptable. His duty as Clerk of Court included the proper custody and supervision of court records, and the death of subordinate sheriffs did not absolve him of this primary responsibility. His claim of having only a ministerial role in docketing and fee collection was contradicted by his broader administrative duties under the Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, which mandates control and supervision over court records and personnel involved in raffle proceedings.
The legal logic is rooted in the principle that court orders must be respected and obeyed promptly and completely. Respondent’s protracted defiance, spanning nearly a decade from the initial judge’s order in 2003, demonstrated a contumacious disregard for lawful authority and the judicial process. Such conduct constitutes grave misconduct, which is a severe offense that erodes public confidence in the administration of justice. Given the seriousness of the infraction and respondent’s position as a court officer, the penalty of dismissal from service, with forfeiture of retirement benefits (except accrued leave credits) and perpetual disqualification from re-employment in any government agency, is justified to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.