Romero v. Sison
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Mario S. Romero, publisher of the Island Observer, charged respondent Augusto R. Sison, Sheriff IV of RTC, Branch 44, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro, with violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) 1079 and Supreme Court Circular No. 63-96. Romero alleged that legal and judicial notices intended for publication were distributed by the respondent to different newspapers without the benefit of raffle. He cited two instances: a Notice for Extrajudicial Foreclosure of Mortgage filed by Philippine National Bank against the spouses Virgilio and Norma del Rosario (Petition No. F-217) and another by Philippine Postal Savings Bank against Alpha King Transit (Petition No. F-218). Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the complaint to the respondent for comment. The respondent denied the accusations, claiming raffles were conducted and submitting minutes of the raffles. The complainant reiterated his charges, clarifying they were for violations of SC Circular No. 63-96 and P.D. 1079, not R.A. No. 6713. The OCA, after review, noted that while the charges might not fall under specific administrative offenses, they could be considered Grave/Serious Misconduct and/or Violation of R.A. No. 6713. The case was referred to a consultant for investigation. The Investigating Justice found the respondent guilty of violating SC Circular No. 63-96 in relation to P.D. 1079 and recommended a fine of P10,000.00. The OCA concurred with the findings and recommendations. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the findings and recommendations of the OCA and the Investigating Justice.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Sheriff violated Supreme Court Circular No. 63-96 and Presidential Decree No. 1079 by distributing legal notices for publication without a raffle. Whether the respondent Sheriff committed grave misconduct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent Sheriff guilty of violating Supreme Court Circular No. 63-96 in relation to P.D. 1079 and imposed a fine of P10,000.00 with a stern warning. The Court also noted the apparent evasion of duty by the Executive Judge, Judge Inocencio M. Jaurique, but deemed the recommendation to remind him moot and academic due to his retirement.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 63-96 and P.D. 1079: The Court affirmed the findings that no raffle was conducted prior to the distribution of the notices for publication in Petition Nos. F-217 and F-218. The minutes of raffle submitted by the respondent were found to have been prepared after the notices were returned by the complainant, indicating a circumvention of the required procedure. The Court emphasized that Section 2 of P.D. 1079 explicitly requires Executive Judges to personally distribute judicial notices for publication by raffle, a duty that cannot be delegated or substituted by drawing of lots without authorization. The respondent's admission that he distributed notices by drawing of lots because only a few newspapers participated demonstrated a clear deviation from the mandated procedure and an abuse of authority. This act not only exceeded his authority but also constituted misconduct that tarnishes the image of the Judiciary. On the issue of grave misconduct: The respondent's actions, including his inconsistent and evasive testimony during the investigation, his claim of amnesia regarding crucial documents, and his admission of using drawing of lots instead of a raffle, collectively demonstrated a lack of probity and diligence expected of a sheriff. His assertion that the Island Observer was not accredited was contradicted by his own prior actions of requesting representative details for raffles and by evidence of personal discussions regarding payment for publications. Furthermore, the issue involving the withholding of publication fees for the Villaluz and Tria foreclosures, where respondent held P6,883.30 for two years without authority, further supported the finding of misconduct. As an agent of the law, a sheriff is held to high standards of propriety and must discharge duties with utmost care and diligence, which the respondent failed to do.
Main Doctrine
A Sheriff's act of distributing court notices for publication through drawing of lots instead of a mandated raffle, without authorization from the Executive Judge, constitutes misconduct and an abuse of authority, undermining the integrity of the judicial process.