Court Raffle Irregularities: When Clerks and Judges Face Administrative Liability

The raffle of cases is a cornerstone of fair and impartial justice in Philippine courts. It is designed to remove any suspicion that a case is assigned to a predetermined judge. When this procedure is compromised, public trust in the judiciary suffers. In Santos v. Buenaventura (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1485, October 11, 2001), the Supreme Court addressed the consequences of an irregular raffle, clarifying the distinct duties of executive judges and clerks of court.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Teofilo C. Santos was a defendant in Civil Case No. 2269 before the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City. The case had been re-raffled several times after three different judges inhibited themselves. When a fourth judge also inhibited, the case was scheduled for another re-raffle on September 24, 1997.

The raffle was held at the Office of the Clerk of Court, conducted by respondent Clerk of Court Numeriano Y. Galang. The Executive Judge, Federico B. Fajardo Jr., was not present at the start of the raffle because he was hearing cases. He arrived only after the raffle had been completed. Santos filed an administrative complaint, alleging the raffle was irregular because it was not personally conducted by the Executive Judge and was done outside public view.

The Issue

The central question was whether the respondents—Judge Feliciano V. Buenaventura, Clerk of Court Galang, and Executive Judge Fajardo—should be held administratively liable for the irregularities in the raffle of Civil Case No. 2269.

The Ruling: Personal Duty of the Executive Judge

The Supreme Court held that the supervision of case raffles is a personal duty of the Executive Judge. This is anchored on Administrative Order No. 6 (June 30, 1975), which lists as one of the Executive Judge's powers and duties the supervision of the raffling and assignment of all cases, in accordance with Circular No. 7 (September 23, 1974).

Circular No. 7 explicitly provides that the raffle "must be conducted at the lawyer's table in open court by the Executive Judge personally with the attendance of two other judges, or in case of the latter's inability, of their duly authorized representatives."

The Court rejected Executive Judge Fajardo's excuse that he was busy with hearings. It noted that he had the authority to fix the day and hour of the raffle and could schedule it to avoid conflict with his other duties. Allowing the raffle to proceed without his presence was a violation of the explicit mandate of the Court and constituted gross neglect of duty.

The Clerk of Court's Obligation

Clerk of Court Galang was also held liable. The Court found that the Manual for Clerks of Court explicitly provides the procedure for raffles. As a ranking officer of the court, Galang should have known that conducting the raffle without the Executive Judge present ran counter to the Manual's requirements. The Court quoted its earlier ruling that the Manual is "in essence the 'Bible for Clerks of Court.'"

No Liability Without Participation

In contrast, Judge Buenaventura was cleared of the charge. The Court noted that he was not present during the raffle and that the complainant failed to prove any participation or "keen interest" on his part in the case. Without any showing of involvement, the charge against him was dismissed for lack of merit.

Practical Takeaways

• Raffles are mandatory safeguards. The raffle procedure under Circular No. 7 is vital because it ensures impartial adjudication and prevents public suspicion of predetermined case assignments.
• Executive judges cannot delegate the raffle. The duty to personally conduct the raffle is non-delegable. A busy hearing schedule is not a valid excuse.
• Clerks of court must follow the Manual. The Manual for Clerks of Court is a binding guide. Proceeding with an irregular raffle makes the clerk liable, even if the clerk did not initiate the irregularity.
• Liability is based on participation. A judge who has no involvement in an irregular raffle and no interest in the case will not be held liable.
• Public office is a public trust. Those connected with the dispensation of justice must conduct themselves with propriety and decorum, and their behavior must be above suspicion.

The Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 on Executive Judge Fajardo and P3,000.00 on Clerk of Court Galang, with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.