A.M. No. P-94-1039. March 6, 1996.
JUDGE FE ALBANO MADRID, complainant, vs. ATTY. RAYMUNDO RAMIREZ, Clerk of Court V, Regional Trial Court of Ilagan, Isabela, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Judge Fe Albano-Madrid filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Raymundo Ramirez, a Branch Clerk of Court, for violating Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92. The controversy stemmed from respondent’s acceptance of a P17,000.00 cash bail bond from an accused whose case was pending in complainant’s sala on October 7, 1993. When ordered to submit the corresponding official receipt, respondent failed to comply and instead submitted a bank deposit slip, indicating he had deposited the amount into a Land Bank current account under the court’s name.
Respondent defended his actions by explaining it was their court’s practice to immediately deposit cash bonds and provide the accused with a copy of the deposit slip and the approved bail bond. He argued that as a Branch Clerk of Court, he was not the custodian of official receipts—a duty belonging to the Executive Clerk of Court—and thus could not be faulted for non-issuance. An investigating judge initially recommended exoneration, accepting respondent’s claim that he acted in the absence of the Executive Clerk and in compliance with relevant circulars.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Atty. Raymundo Ramirez is administratively liable for violating Supreme Court Circular No. 13-92 by accepting a cash bail bond without issuing an official receipt.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court Administrator’s recommendation, imposing a P1,000.00 fine with a stern warning. The legal logic centers on the proper delineation of duties and strict adherence to procedural rules governing fiduciary funds. Circular No. 13-92 explicitly mandates that Clerks of Court, as custodians, must issue official receipts for all fiduciary collections, including bail bonds, to ensure transparency and prevent misappropriation.
The Court rejected respondent’s defenses. First, his claim of acting in the Executive Clerk’s absence was unsubstantiated and a belafterthought, as he failed to prove such absence during the prolonged period from receipt to the court’s order. Second, his role as a Branch Clerk of Court did not authorize him to receive the bond; he should have referred the accused to the proper accountable officer. By arrogating this function, he bypassed the essential safeguard of immediate receipt issuance. The deposit into a court account, while ultimately safeguarding the money, did not cure the procedural violation, as the circular’s purpose is to ensure an immediate, auditable trail from collection. The Court emphasized that strict compliance is non-delegable and vital to preserving public trust in the judiciary’s handling of funds.