Taguinod v. Madrid
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Francisco C. Taguinod and Andres R. Cabanlong filed an administrative complaint against Judge Fe Albano Madrid for irregularities in the distribution of judicial notices, alleging lack of notification of raffles, distribution to out-of-town newspapers with no local circulation, belated publications, and demands for "grease money." Judge Madrid claimed Valley Times, City Star, and Philippine Recorder were the only accredited local newspapers and instructed Deputy Sheriff Rolando Tomas to apportion notices equally between City Star and Philippine Recorder as Valley Times had no representative, asserting Philippine Recorder was qualified due to its Santiago City office and denying knowledge of "grease money" demands, attributing them to sheriffs and other personnel. She also stated she invited the complainants to see her, but they did not appear. The complainants maintained their allegations, stating the Judge's invitation was not the proper procedure. Judge Madrid later acknowledged her procedure was not strictly in accordance with Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1079 but justified it by the limited number of local newspapers and existing practice, beginning distribution by raffle only after the complaint was filed. She also expressed willingness to identify unaccredited newspapers and personnel demanding "grease money." During the investigation, complainant Taguinod presented evidence of Deputy Sheriff Tomas demanding and receiving "discounts" (10% of publication fees) from March to November 1996, evidenced by checks, and proof of Philippine Recorder's main office being in Manila, questioning its qualification. Respondent Judge testified she did not reply to earlier letters from Taguinod but investigated the overcharging claim, finding it baseless. She claimed she issued an order on September 16, 1996, requiring City Star to submit documents for accreditation, which was granted on November 12, 1997. She delegated distribution to Deputy Sheriff Tomas as a mere administrative duty, only starting personal distribution by raffle after receiving Circular No. 5-98 in June 1998. She admitted awareness of PD 1079 before 1998 but not its exact wording. She confronted Deputy Sheriff Tomas about the "discounts" claim, who denied it, and she inclined to believe him. She denied profiting from any publisher and claimed she disqualified Philippine Recorder after finding merit in its supplemental page printing practice. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for investigation. The OCA recommended that respondent Judge be fined one month's salary for non-compliance with PD 1079 and Circular 5-98, and that Deputy Sheriff Tomas be investigated for receiving money from publishers. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the OCA's report and recommendations.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Fe Albano Madrid is liable for non-compliance with Presidential Decree No. 1079 and Circular No. 5-98 regarding the distribution of judicial notices for publication. Whether Deputy Sheriff Rolando Tomas should be investigated for demanding and receiving "grease money" or "discounts" from newspaper publishers.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Judge Fe Albano Madrid liable for non-compliance with Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 1079. It imposed a fine equivalent to her one-month salary with a warning against repetition. The Court also directed the Office of the Court Administrator to investigate Deputy Sheriff Rolando Tomas for possible violation of Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1079.
Ratio Decidendi
On Respondent Judge's Liability for Non-compliance with Presidential Decree No. 1079: The Court held that respondent Judge was liable for violating Section 2 of PD 1079, which mandates the personal distribution of judicial notices by raffle. She admitted delegating this duty to Deputy Sheriff Tomas and apportioning notices equally between two newspapers, contrary to the law's requirement of a raffle system, except when only one newspaper operates in the locality. The Court rejected her justifications, including the limited number of newspapers and the claim that it was a mere administrative task, citing the case of Office of the Court Administrator v. Bartolome which emphasized that the raffle system is indispensable to avoid favoritism and prevent graft and corruption. The Court further stated that ignorance of PD 1079, which took effect in 1977, could not be a valid defense for an Executive Judge appointed in 1987, as they are expected to be thoroughly acquainted with laws governing their office. The non-compliance led to irregularities, including the awarding of bulk publication jobs to an unqualified newspaper and the alleged extortion activities of Deputy Sheriff Tomas. The Court found that respondent Judge's failure to strictly adhere to the prescribed procedure constituted non-compliance with her duties. On the OCA's Recommendation for the Investigation of Deputy Sheriff Tomas: The Court found merit in the OCA's recommendation to investigate Deputy Sheriff Tomas. The evidence presented by complainant Taguinod, including checks issued to "Cash" or "R. Tomas/Rolly Tomas," warranted an investigation for possible violation of Section 5 of PD 1079, which prohibits court employees from demanding or receiving money, commission, or gifts from publishers in consideration of any publication. However, the Court noted that the evidence did not show that respondent Judge approved of or benefited from Deputy Sheriff Tomas' alleged extortion activities.
Main Doctrine
Executive Judges are strictly mandated to personally distribute judicial notices for publication by raffle, in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 1079 and relevant circulars, to prevent favoritism, graft, and corruption. Delegation of this duty is a violation of the law.