DONATILLA M. NONES, COMPLAINANT, VS. VERONICA M. ORMITA, CLERK OF COURT II, MTC-BANGAR, LA UNION, RESPONDENT.

Nones versus Ormita

The Case

This is an administrative case filed by Donatilla M. Nones against Veronica M. Ormita, Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Bangar, La Union. The complaint charges the respondent with usurpation of a judge's function, arising from an order she issued releasing an accused person on bail. The case matters because it draws a bright line between the administrative work of clerks of court and the judicial discretion that belongs to judges alone, and because it shows how the Supreme Court treats a clerk who crosses that line, even with good intentions.

Procedural History

The complainant filed a sworn administrative complaint directly with the Supreme Court. The Office of the Court Administrator reviewed the matter and submitted a report dated October 9, 2001, finding that the respondent's act of ordering the release of the accused had absolutely no legal basis. The Court Administrator recommended that the respondent be fined 1,000 pesos with a warning. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings but held that a heavier penalty was warranted, and resolved the case in this decision.

Facts

In Criminal Case Number 4216, entitled People of the Philippines versus Alfredo Ormita Y Olpindo, the accused was charged with frustrated homicide before the Municipal Trial Court of Bangar, La Union. On March 25, 1995, the respondent, as Clerk of Court, issued an order directing the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology of Bangar, La Union, to discharge the accused from custody, for having filed a sufficient bail bond in the amount of 5,000 pesos for his provisional liberty. The complainant alleged that the released prisoner was a relative of the respondent's husband.

The complainant also mentioned Criminal Case Number 4782, entitled People of the Philippines versus Veronica M. Ormita, for grave oral defamation, which she filed with the same court. That complaint arose from an incident on September 11, 2000, inside the Municipal Trial Court of Bangar, La Union, where the respondent allegedly hurled scurrilous words against her. For these reasons, the complainant prayed that the respondent be suspended from office during the trial to prevent her from taking advantage of her position.

In her comment dated November 28, 2000, the respondent explained that she had issued the order for humanitarian reasons. She added that she had honestly thought it was the best thing to do under the circumstances. The complainant later filed an affidavit of desistance.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent, as Clerk of Court, may validly issue an order releasing an accused person on bail.
• Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for usurping a judicial function, even if she acted without bad faith and for humanitarian reasons.
• Whether or not the affidavit of desistance filed by the complainant warrants the dismissal of the administrative complaint.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator is the proper penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 136 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 4. Issuance by clerk of process. The clerk of a superior court shall issue under the seal of the court all ordinary writs and process incident to pending cases, the issuance of which does not involve the exercise of functions appertaining to the court or judge only; and may, under the direction of the court or judge, make out and sign letters of administration, appointments of guardians, trustees, and receivers, and all writs and process issuing from the court.

This provision defines the scope of a clerk's authority to issue process, and it expressly excludes acts that involve functions appertaining to the court or judge only, which is exactly what a release order is.

Section 5 of Rule 136 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 5. Duties of the clerk in the absence or by direction of the judge. In the absence of the judge, the clerk may perform all the duties of the judge in receiving applications, petitions, inventories, reports, and the issuance of all orders and notices that follow as a matter of course under these rules, and may also, when directed so to do by the judge, receive the accounts of executors, administrators, guardians, trustees, and receivers, and all evidence relating to them, or to the settlement of the estates of deceased persons, or to guardianships, trusteeships, or receiverships, and forthwith transmit such reports, accounts and evidence to the judge, together with his findings in relation to the same, if the judge shall direct him to make findings and include the same in his report.

This provision limits what a clerk may do in the judge's absence to orders that follow as a matter of course, and a release order on bail is not such an order because it requires judicial discretion.

Section 22 of Rule 14 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book 5 of Executive Order Number 292 provides:

Section 22. Administrative offenses with its corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave, and light, depending on the gravity of its nature and effects of said acts on the government service.

This provision classifies administrative offenses and their penalties, and the Court uses it to fix the proper sanction for the respondent's misconduct.

The same section lists the following less grave offense:

(b) Simple Misconduct 1st Offense - Suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months 2nd Offense - Dismissal

This is the specific penalty range the Court applies, showing that the recommended fine was not in conformity with the rules.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the issuance of a release order is a judicial function, not an administrative one. The respondent had no power to order the commitment or the release on bail of persons charged with penal offenses. By releasing the accused on account of the cash bond he had posted, she arrogated unto herself the authority to exercise judicial discretion and overstepped the boundaries of her function by undertaking an act that fell squarely within the discretion of the judge.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent is administratively liable. Her act constituted a serious infringement of and encroachment upon judicial authority, and such usurpation was equivalent to misconduct. The Court credited her unselfish dedication in working on a Saturday, but held that no matter how noble her intention was, she still acted beyond the scope of her authority. Even if no bad faith was attributed to her, she is still administratively liable for overstepping her duties.

On the third issue, the Court held that the affidavit of desistance did not warrant dismissal. An administrative complaint against public officers or employees cannot just be withdrawn at any time by the simple expediency of the complainant suddenly claiming a change of mind, and the withdrawal of the complaint would not result in the automatic dismissal of the case. The faith and confidence of the people in the government and its agencies must be maintained, and the people should not be made to depend upon the whims and caprices of complainants who, in a real sense, are only witnesses.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the recommended fine of 1,000 pesos was not only disproportionate to the violation committed but was likewise not in conformity with the penalties prescribed by the rules. The Court increased the penalty to suspension of three months and one day without pay.

Doctrine

Clerks of court perform only administrative, not judicial, functions. Their duties are to assist in the management of the calendar and in all other matters that do not involve the discretion or judgment properly belonging to the judge. The issuance of a release order on bail is a judicial function, and a clerk who issues one usurps judicial authority.

Usurpation of judicial authority is equivalent to misconduct. Good faith, humanitarian motives, and the absence of bad faith do not excuse a clerk who acts beyond the scope of her authority; administrative liability attaches for overstepping one's duties.

An administrative complaint cannot be withdrawn at the whim of the complainant. The complainant is, in a real sense, only a witness, and the withdrawal of the complaint does not automatically result in the dismissal of the case, because the faith and confidence of the people in the government must be maintained.

The penalty for simple misconduct on first offense is suspension for one month and one day to six months, and the Court will impose a penalty within that range proportionate to the violation, even if it exceeds what the Office of the Court Administrator recommended.

Disposition

The Court found Veronica M. Ormita guilty of misconduct and suspended her for three months and one day without pay, with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act in the future would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that clerks of court perform only administrative, not judicial, functions, and issuing a release order on bail is beyond their powers and is misconduct. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between administrative and judicial functions, and to test whether good faith or an affidavit of desistance can shield a court employee from administrative liability.