Facts:

This case involves a complaint filed by several accredited local publishers, namely The Weekly Ilocandia Inquirer, The Norluzonian Courier, The Amianan Tribune, The Weekly City Bulletin, The Northern Star, The Weekly Banat, The North Luzon Headline, The Regional Diaryo, and High Plains Journal Ilocandia (collectively referred to as the Accredited Publishers), against Samuel L. Del Rosario, a Clerk III at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 33 in Bauang, La Union. The complaint was initiated through a Joint Affidavit-Complaint submitted to RTC Branch 67 on October 19, 2011, alleging grave misconduct and gross violation of Presidential Decree No. 1079, which regulates the publication of judicial notices. The complainants contended that Del Rosario, along with publishers Harry Peralta and Brenda Ramos, conspired to bypass the required raffle process for the publication of judicial notices, thereby favoring certain publishers to the detriment of the complainants. Del Rosario ad...

Facts:

Procedural and Background Information

• The case arose from a Joint Affidavit-Complaint filed before Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 67 in Bauang, La Union, charging grave misconduct and a gross violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1079.
• The complaint was filed by a group of accredited publishers, including The Weekly Ilocandia Inquirer, The Norluzonian Courier, The Amianan Tribune, The Weekly City Bulletin, The Northern Star, The Weekly Banat, The North Luzon Headline, The Regional Diaryo, and High Plains Journal Ilocandia.

Allegations and Nature of the Misconduct

• Complainants alleged that as accredited publishers of judicial and legal notices, they were entitled to participate in the required raffle draws for publication.
• It was further alleged that respondent Samuel L. del Rosario, Clerk III of RTC Branch 33, deliberately referred cases to favored newspaper publishers without conducting the necessary raffle, thus bypassing the legal procedure designed to ensure fairness.
• Additional allegations included:
• The involvement of respondent publishers Harry Peralta (of the Ilocos Herald) and Brenda Ramos (of Watching Eye) in publishing judicial notices without raffling.
• Claims that Del Rosario misrepresented his authority by indicating that his referrals were made with the knowledge of the presiding judge.
• Assertions that he received money indirectly, evidenced by his borrowing from Reyes for medicine expenses, which suggested an exchange of favors for the unraffled publications.

Development of the Administrative and Investigative Proceedings

• At RTC Branch 67, Judge Fe ruled that respondents Del Rosario, Abarra, and Reyes had violated A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC and possibly provisions of the Revised Penal Code on falsification.
• The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the case and recommended re-docketing it as a full-fledged administrative matter due to the gravity of the allegations.
• The complaint was subsequently referred to Judge Rose Mary M. Alim, Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 33, for an investigation and a detailed report within 60 days.

Findings of the Investigating Court

• Judge Alim’s Report/Recommendation found that:
• Respondent Del Rosario admitted to referring some cases to favored newspaper publishers without following the mandatory raffle process.
• He misled the newspaper representatives by implying that his direct assignments had the presiding judge’s awareness, and he further compounded the issue by borrowing money from those representatives.
• Specific findings included:
• The referral of cases without a raffle was considered grave misconduct.
• The act of borrowing money, in essence, was tantamount to receiving consideration for favoring certain publishers, which jeopardized the integrity of the court's administrative processes.
• Judge Alim recommended a one-year suspension, tempered by the fact that this was his second offense (the first being dismissed in the People vs. Borromeo case) and his subsequent apology, with a stern warning against repetition.

Additional Context and Evidence

• Del Rosario justified his actions by alleging that some publishers charged higher rates, and his intentions were to aid indigent litigants—a claim he failed to substantiate with evidence.
• Testimonies from other involved parties, including Abarra and Reyes, corroborated that Del Rosario had engaged in practices that undermined the required process of raffling judicial notices.
• The accusations were deemed to not only breach administrative rules but also to erode public confidence in the judiciary.

Issue:

Whether referring judicial notices for publication without conducting the mandated raffle constitutes grave misconduct and a violation of A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC in relation to P.D. No. 1079.

• Does bypassing the raffle process compromise the fairness and competitive integrity intended under the law?
• Can the allegation of showing favoritism to certain publishers be sustained as a breach of judicial procedure?

Whether accepting monetary loans from newspaper publishers (or persons with business dealings with the court) when such funds serve as an ulterior motive for bypassing required procedures constitutes a conflict of interest and grave misconduct.

• Is the act of receiving money—regardless of the stated purpose—a sufficient basis for sanctioning court personnel under rules governing public trust?
• Does receiving such loans inherently cast doubts on the integrity and impartiality of court operations?

Whether mitigating factors such as previous similar offenses (as in the People vs. Borromeo case) and the respondent’s apology are adequate to warrant a suspension rather than dismissal.

• Should compassion and a claim of aiding indigent litigants be considered valid justifications for non-compliance with strictly mandated legal procedures?

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)