A.M. No. P-08-2418 - Bascos vs. Ramirez

Complainant Ferdinand S. Bascos, manager of the local community newspaper The Valley Times, filed a sworn letter-complaint dated November 25, 2004, with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
He charged Atty. Raymundo A. Ramirez, Clerk of Court and Ex-officio Provincial Sheriff of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ilagan, Isabela, with multiple misconducts including neglect of duty, arrogance, willful and deliberate violation of Supreme Court Circulars in connection with Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1079, and several attempts at extortion.

Complainant alleged that on January 31, 2003, he informed then Executive Judge Juan A. Bigornia, Jr. that respondent had failed to comply with the judge’s verbal order to designate a day for raffling judicial and extra-judicial notices requiring publication.
It was further alleged that respondent exhibited partiality by awarding 13 out of 14 notices of extra-judicial foreclosure filed by the Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag-IBIG Fund) to a rival newspaper, the Isabela Profile, bypassing the mandated raffle process.
Following the complaint, Judge Bigornia issued a directive (via his letter dated February 27, 2003) ordering the respondent to submit within five days all pertinent records regarding:

The applications for extra-judicial foreclosures received from December 2002 onward.
The docket numbers associated with these applications.
The names of the Deputy Sheriffs to whom the applications were forwarded.
The names of the newspapers to which these notices were awarded for publication.

On June 24, 2003, complainant filed a petition in the RTC of Ilagan for the disqualification of the Isabela Profile on the ground that it lacked local (Santiago City or Isabela province) editorial and business offices. The petition was dismissed during open court proceedings.
Complainant subsequently noted that he had to withdraw the disqualification petition after the Isabela Profile’s application for accreditation was approved ex-parte, alleging that respondent facilitated this approval by not setting the application for a hearing or furnishing him a copy of the application, thereby denying him the opportunity to oppose and prove its ineligibility.
Additionally, complainant accused respondent of concealing judicial and extra-judicial foreclosure cases from Judge Bigornia and of failing to include more than twenty foreclosure cases in the raffle, besides demanding exorbitant commissions for publishing such cases.

In his comment dated April 25, 2005, respondent denied the allegations by attributing them to business rivalry between him and the complainant, asserting that:

The charge of partiality towards the Isabela Profile was a “wild imagination.”
The allegation of concealing foreclosure cases was “malicious and sweeping” and that any such irregularities would have been noticed by the judge.
His conduct in excluding himself from certain publication procedures was in strict compliance with the judge’s order, and that the accusation of extortion was unsubstantiated.

The respondent further inquired why similar allegations were not filed against the Executive Judge, contending that the facts aligned more with that office.
The OCA, in its report dated July 18, 2005, found respondent’s defenses untenable and recommended a fine of P2,000.00, with a warning that similar future infractions would be met with more severe penalties.

Presidential Decree No. 1079 and Supreme Court Circular No. 5-98 mandate the strict compliance with the procedural requirement of raffling judicial and legal notices for publication by an Executive Judge.
An En Banc Resolution (A.M. No. 01-01-07-SC, October 16, 2001) provides uniform guidelines for the accreditation of newspapers qualified to publish said notices, reinforcing the mandatory nature of the raffle procedure.

By failing to include more than twenty foreclosure cases in the required raffle and not complying with the judge’s explicit directives, the respondent exhibited:

Whether respondent, Atty. Raymundo A. Ramirez, violated the mandatory procedural requirements enshrined in P.D. No. 1079 and Circular No. 5-98 by failing to conduct the raffle for the publication of judicial and extra-judicial foreclosure notices.
Whether the respondent’s actions constituted gross neglect of duty, insubordination, concealment of pertinent case records, and unjust favoritism towards the Isabela Profile at the expense of due process.
Whether the allegations of extortion and demands for exorbitant commissions have merit in light of the procedural irregularities and failure to comply with direct orders from the Executive Judge.
Whether the administrative penalty recommended by the OCA was justifiable, or if the gravity of the violations warranted a more severe sanction.