A.M. No. P-96-1213, August 01, 1996
Julie O. Ramirez, Complainant, vs. Fernando G. Racho, Clerk of Court, MTC, Branch 21, Manila, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Julie O. Ramirez requested and paid for certified copies of documents from the records of Civil Case No. 126749-CV from respondent Fernando G. Racho, Branch Clerk of Court. The respondent instructed a court stenographer to photocopy the documents and directed the complainant’s representative to pay the corresponding fee. However, the reproduced documents were not stamped as “certified xerox copies.” Consequently, the Supreme Court denied complainant’s Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition due to the non-attachment of certified copies of the annexed documents.
In his defense, respondent averred that he assumed the complainant’s representative would return to have the documents stamped, which the representative failed to do. He also argued that the attached official receipts would show the documents were certified copies. The case was referred for investigation, where the complainant could no longer be located. The investigating judge recommended dismissal, but the Office of the Court Administrator found a basis for liability.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Clerk of Court is administratively liable for gross neglect of duty for failing to ensure the requested photocopied documents were properly certified.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court affirmed the recommendation of the Court Administrator, imposing a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00). The legal logic centers on the mandatory duties of a clerk of court under the Rules of Court. Section 11, Rule 136 mandates the clerk to prepare, for any person demanding it, a copy certified under the court’s seal of any record or paper in his office. As the custodian of court records, the respondent bears the primary responsibility to ensure that every request for certified copies is properly fulfilled.
The Court rejected the respondent’s defense that the blame should rest on the complainant’s representative for not returning. This defense was deemed untenable and showed ignorance of basic duties. The duty to certify is a non-delegable, official function of the clerk of court. The failure to provide the certified copies as requested, which adversely affected the complainant’s legal remedy, constitutes negligence. The respondent failed to devise or follow a system ensuring strict compliance with his certification duty. His conduct fell short of the high standard of responsibility required of all court personnel, warranting disciplinary action for neglect of duty.