Santos v. Buenaventura
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Teofilo C. Santos, defendant in Civil Case No. 2269, alleged irregularity in the raffle of the case. The case was initially raffled to Branch 86, then re-raffled to Branch 30, and subsequently to Branch 28. After both parties rested their case in Branch 28, the plaintiff moved for the inhibition of the presiding judge, which was granted. A re-raffle was held on September 24, 1997, assigning the case to Branch 27, presided by respondent Judge Feliciano V. Buenaventura. Complainant alleged that the raffle was not conducted personally by the Executive Judge but by respondent Clerk of Court Numeriano Y. Galang, and that the Executive Judge was absent and the drawing of lots was done beyond public view. Procedural History: Respondent Judge Buenaventura denied the charges, stating he was not present during the raffle. Respondent Clerk of Court Galang claimed he was instructed by the Executive Judge to proceed with the raffle due to the latter's busy schedule, and that the raffle was conducted in full view of representatives from all nine RTC branches, with no objection from complainant's representative. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended dismissal of the charge against Judge Buenaventura, a fine for Clerk of Court Galang, and a fine for Executive Judge Federico B. Fajardo Jr. for allowing the raffle to proceed without his presence. The Petition: The administrative complaint was filed against Judge Buenaventura and Clerk of Court Galang for alleged irregularity in the raffling of Civil Case No. 2269.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents Judge Feliciano V. Buenaventura and Clerk of Court Numeriano Y. Galang committed irregularity in the raffling of Civil Case No. 2269. Whether Executive Judge Federico B. Fajardo Jr. committed gross neglect of duty by allowing the raffle to proceed without his personal presence.
Ruling
The charge against respondent Judge Feliciano V. Buenaventura was dismissed for lack of merit. Respondent Clerk of Court Numeriano Y. Galang was fined P3,000.00 and sternly warned. Respondent Executive Judge Federico B. Fajardo Jr. was fined P5,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge against Judge Feliciano V. Buenaventura and Clerk of Court Numeriano Y. Galang: The Court found no merit in the charge against Judge Buenaventura as he was not present during the raffle and there was no evidence presented to show his participation in any irregularity. The responsibility for overseeing the raffling of cases primarily rests with the Executive Judge. Absent any showing that Judge Buenaventura had any involvement in the alleged irregularity, the charge against him could not be given credence. His mere assignment to the case after the questioned raffle did not automatically make him liable for the manner in which it was conducted. The Court found Clerk of Court Galang liable for proceeding with the raffle in the absence of the Executive Judge. The Manual for Clerks of Court explicitly outlines the procedure for raffling cases, and respondent Galang, as Clerk of Court, was expected to know and adhere to these rules. His failure to do so demonstrated remissness in his duties. The Court emphasized that the functions and duties of his office should have alerted him to the irregularity of the manner by which the raffle was being conducted, as it ran counter to established procedures. On the liability of Executive Judge Federico B. Fajardo Jr.: The Court held Executive Judge Fajardo Jr. liable for allowing the raffle to be conducted by the clerk of court without his personal presence. Supreme Court Circular No. 1 mandates that the raffle must be conducted by the Executive Judge personally. Administrative Order No. 6 further states that supervising the raffling of cases is a specific duty of the Executive Judge. His claim of being busy with court hearings was not a valid excuse for his gross neglect of duty. As Executive Judge, he had the authority to schedule the raffle in a manner that would not interfere with his other duties, and he could not simply "catch up" with the raffle after it had already concluded without his supervision.
Main Doctrine
The Executive Judge has the personal duty and responsibility to supervise the raffling of cases. Failure to do so constitutes gross neglect of duty. A Clerk of Court proceeding with a raffle in the absence of the Executive Judge, without proper authorization or in violation of established procedures, is also liable.