A.M. No. P-1730. December 14, 1978.
SATURNINO PASCUA, complainant, vs. BERNABE ODERO and TEOFILO C. CHIONG, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Saturnino Pascua filed a civil case for damages. After his complaint was dismissed, he filed a notice of appeal, record on appeal, and appeal bond. The trial court later amended its dismissal order, giving Pascua time to amend his complaint instead, denying his appeal, and ordering the refund of his appeal bond. Pascua unsuccessfully pursued mandamus and certiorari proceedings to challenge the denial of his appeal. Years later, on December 20, 1976, Pascua filed a “Motion for Writ of Execution” and a “Motion for Refund of Appeal Bond” with the trial court.
The respondent clerks of court, Bernabe Odero and Teofilo C. Chiong, refused to issue the requested writ of execution. Odero stated he found no legal basis for issuing the writ. Chiong clarified that the motion for execution had already been denied by the trial court on March 1, 1976. Regarding the cash appeal bond, Chiong explained it had been remitted to the government treasury as per standard procedure, and he had furnished Pascua a copy of the court’s 1973 refund order to facilitate withdrawal from the treasury, but Pascua failed to comprehend this.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent clerks of court are administratively liable for neglect and refusal to perform an official duty for their failure to issue a writ of execution and to refund a cash appeal bond.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The legal logic is anchored on the scope of the clerks’ ministerial duties and the absence of a judicial order compelling the action. A writ of execution is issued pursuant to a valid and final judgment or order. The respondents correctly refused to issue the writ because there was no such underlying judicial directive; in fact, the trial court had explicitly denied the motion for execution. Their duty to issue a writ is not discretionary but ministerial, arising only upon a valid court order, which was lacking.
Concerning the refund of the appeal bond, the court had already ordered its refund in 1973. The respondents were not culpable for the non-receipt of the money, as the bond had been properly remitted to the treasury in accordance with fiscal rules after Pascua failed to claim it promptly. Chiong’s act of furnishing the court order to Pascua was a proper facilitation step. The respondents’ actions demonstrated neither neglect nor refusal to perform a duty, but rather a correct adherence to procedural rules in the absence of the requisite judicial authority for issuance of the writ. No administrative liability attaches.