A.M. No. P-03-1675; August 6, 2003
Elena F. Pace, Complainant, vs. Reno M. Leonardo, Clerk of Court II, MCTC, Branch 5, Odiongan, Romblon, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Elena F. Pace was the offended party in a grave slander case. The accused, Raf Yap, posted a cash bond. After pleading guilty years later, he was convicted and ordered to pay damages. Yap then verbally requested the release of his cash bond from respondent Reno M. Leonardo, Clerk of Court II. Respondent released the bond without a written court order, relying on a claimed verbal directive from the presiding judge. This prompted the judge to issue an order for Yap’s rearrest unless a new bond was posted. Yap subsequently presented a deposit slip for ₱5,000 to the respondent, who accepted it as the new cash bond, leading to the lifting of the arrest order.
In his defense, respondent asserted he acted pursuant to the judge’s verbal order and that the withdrawal slip for the initial release was signed by the judge. He further claimed his acceptance of the new bond via a deposit slip was proper, as the cash was deposited into the court’s bank account, and an official receipt was issued.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Reno M. Leonardo is administratively liable for usurpation of judicial functions, gross ignorance of the law, or violation of court circulars.

RULING

The Supreme Court exonerated respondent of usurpation of judicial functions and gross ignorance of the law but found him liable for violating Supreme Court Circular No. 50-95. The Court held that usurpation of judicial functions requires performing an act vested by law exclusively in a judge. The release of fiduciary funds, while requiring court authority, is not a purely judicial act, thus negating the charge. On gross ignorance, the evidence showed respondent accepted cash, not merely a deposit slip, and properly deposited it pursuant to the Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, refuting the allegation.
However, respondent was administratively liable for violating Circular No. 50-95 governing fiduciary funds. The circular mandatorily requires a written court order for the release of such funds, with the withdrawal slip signed by both the judge and the clerk of court to ensure accountability. Respondent’s reliance on a purported verbal order was insufficient; he had a duty to reduce it to writing for formal approval. As custodian of court funds, his conduct must strictly adhere to rules to preserve the integrity of judicial administration. Considering his reliance on the judge’s verbal directive and the judge’s signature on the slip, the Court modified the OCA’s recommended penalty. Respondent was fined ₱1,000 with a stern warning.