Nones v Ormita Doctrine: Clerks of court perform only administrative, not judicial, functions.

Issuing orders of release on bail is beyond their powers and administratively sanctionable as misconduct. Facts: Nones alleged that respondent clerk of court, Ormita, issued an Order irecting the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology of La Union to discharge from custody Mr. Alfredo Murao Y Olpindo for having filed sufficient bail bond in the amount of five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) for his provisional liberty x x x Nones claims that the released prisoner is a relative of respondents (Ormitas) husband. Nones likewise mentioned a criminal case entitled People of the Philippines vs. Veronica M. Ormita for Grave Oral Defamation which she filed with the MTC of La Union. The complaint arose from an incident where respondent allegedly hurled scurrilous words against her. For these reasons, complainant prayed that respondent be suspended from office during the trial to prevent her from taking advantage of her position. According to Ormita, she issued the Order for humanitarian reasons. She added that she had honestly thought it was the best thing to do under the circumstances. Issue: W/N Ormita should be suspended as clerk of court Held: No. Ormita should only be fined with a warning that a repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely Ratio: Clerks of court are important functionaries of the judiciary. Their administrative functions are vital to the prompt and sound administration of justice. They cannot be allowed to overstep their powers and responsibilities. Their office is the hub of adjudicative and administrative orders, processes and concerns.They perform a very delicate function as custodian of the court's funds, revenues, records, property and premises. They are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment of such funds and property. Further, clerks of court are the administrative assistants of judges. The formers duty is to assist in the management of the calendar of the court and in all other matters that do not involve the discretion or judgment properly belonging to the latter. Clerks of court are specifically imbued with the mandate to safeguard the integrity of the court as well as the efficiency of its proceedings, to preserve respect for and loyalty to it, to maintain the authenticity or correctness of court records, and to uphold the confidence of the public in the administration of

justice. Thus, they are required to be persons of competence, honesty and probity In the present case, respondent improperly clothe herself with judicial authority. The issuance of a release order is a judicial function, not an administrative one. Unlike a judicial authority, she 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, respondent arrogated unto herself the authority to exercise judicial discretion. She overstepped the boundaries of her function by undertaking an act that fell squarely within the discretion of Judge Samuel H. Gaerlan. Her act constituted a serious infringement of and encroachment upon judicial authority. Such usurpation was equivalent to misconduct. Although we may credit respondent for her unselfish dedication as clerk of court by working on a Saturday, the fact remains 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 concerning the issuance of the Order, she is still administratively liable for overstepping her duties.