A.M. No. P-01-1532 October 9, 2002
Donatilla M. Nones, complainant, vs. Veronica M. Ormita, Clerk of Court II, MTC-Bangar, La Union, respondent.

FACTS

The complainant, Donatilla M. Nones, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Veronica M. Ormita, Clerk of Court of the MTC of Bangar, La Union, for usurpation of a judge’s function. The complainant alleged that on March 25, 1995, the respondent issued an Order directing the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology to discharge from custody Mr. Alfredo Murao Y Olpindo (also referred to as Alfredo Ormita Y Olpindo) for having filed a sufficient bail bond in the amount of P5,000.00 for his provisional liberty in Criminal Case No. 4216 for Frustrated Homicide. The complainant claimed the released prisoner was a relative of the respondent’s husband. The complainant also mentioned a separate criminal case for Grave Oral Defamation she had filed against the respondent. In her Comment, the respondent explained she issued the Order for humanitarian reasons and thought it was the best thing to do under the circumstances. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the respondent’s act had no legal basis. An Affidavit of Desistance was later filed by the complainant.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Veronica M. Ormita, a Clerk of Court, is administratively liable for misconduct for issuing an order of release on bail, which is a judicial function.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable for misconduct. The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA’s findings but imposed a heavier penalty. The Court ruled that clerks of court perform only administrative, not judicial, functions. Their duties, as defined in the Rules of Court, do not include the exercise of functions appertaining to the court or judge only. Issuing an order of release on bail involves judicial discretion and is a judicial function. By issuing the release order, the respondent improperly clothed herself with judicial authority, overstepped the boundaries of her administrative function, and encroached upon the authority of the presiding judge. This act constituted misconduct. The Court emphasized that clerks of court must be individuals of competence, honesty, and probity, and their conduct must always be beyond reproach. The withdrawal of the complaint via the Affidavit of Desistance does not result in the automatic dismissal of an administrative case. Considering the violation as Simple Misconduct, a less grave offense, the Court modified the OCA’s recommended penalty of a P1,000.00 fine. Respondent Veronica M. Ormita was found GUILTY of misconduct and SUSPENDED for three (3) months and one day without pay, with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act will be dealt with more severely.