G.R. No. P-08-2440. March 28, 2008
Anaclito Carandang, Complainant, vs. Remedios Base, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court, Brooke’s Point, Palawan, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Anaclito Carandang charged respondent Remedios Base, Clerk of Court, with gross misconduct and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. He alleged that on April 12, 2003, his wife was summoned by respondent, who demanded money to facilitate the dismissal of a criminal case for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia against him. The amount was allegedly reduced to ₱500, which his wife paid. It was later discovered that the criminal case had already been dismissed by the Regional Trial Court on December 6, 2001. Complainant further alleged that respondent instigated his subsequent arrests in November 2002 and March 2003 despite this prior dismissal.
Respondent denied all charges. She asserted that April 12, 2003, was a Saturday, a non-working day, and she resided far from the court station. Regarding the arrests, she claimed lack of knowledge of the dismissal order, as her office was not furnished a copy. She explained that issuing a commitment order upon the arrest was a mere ministerial duty performed upon presentation of a standing warrant by police officers.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Remedios Base is administratively liable for the acts complained of.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent guilty of Simple Misconduct, but not of the grave charges of extortion or graft. The investigating judge and the Office of the Court Administrator found the extortion allegation unsubstantiated, noting inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements and a lack of corroborative evidence. The claim that respondent instigated the arrests was also not proven, as the issuance of the commitment order was based on a valid warrant.
However, the Court held respondent liable for Simple Misconduct for arrogating a judicial function. By issuing a commitment order, she performed an act reserved for a judge. A Clerk of Court has no independent power to order commitment or release; such an order must be issued explicitly upon the judge’s authority. This unlawful behavior transgresses established rules of conduct for public officers. Considering respondent had a prior administrative record for simple neglect of duty, and to prevent disruption of public service, the Court imposed a fine equivalent to two months’ salary with a stern warning against repetition. The more serious charges were dismissed for lack of evidence.