Sheriff Fined for Bypassing Raffle Rules in Publishing Court Notices

A sheriff who distributed legal notices for publication without the raffle required by law has been fined P10,000 by the Supreme Court. The case reminds court personnel that shortcuts in procedure—even those that seem convenient—are serious misconduct that erodes public trust in the judiciary.

The Complaint Against Sheriff Sison

Mario S. Romero, publisher of the Island Observer newspaper, filed an administrative complaint against Augusto R. Sison, Sheriff IV of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro. Romero alleged that Sison was distributing judicial and legal notices to newspapers without first conducting the raffle mandated by Presidential Decree No. 1079 and Supreme Court Circular No. 63-96.

Romero cited two specific instances. He received notices for extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage—one filed by the Philippine National Bank against the spouses del Rosario (Petition No. F-217) and another by the Philippine Postal Savings Bank against Alpha King Transit (Petition No. F-218). In both cases, Romero returned the notices because they had not been raffled.

The Sheriff's Defense

Sison denied the accusations. He claimed that raffles were indeed conducted before the notices were sent for publication, attaching minutes of raffle as evidence. He also argued that the Island Observer was not accredited to publish legal notices in Mamburao.

The investigation, however, told a different story. The raffle minutes submitted by Sison showed that the petitions were raffled only after Romero had returned them. Petition No. F-217 was returned on March 4, 1999, and raffled on March 17, 1999. Petition No. F-218 was returned on March 13, 1999, and raffled on March 23, 1999.

The investigating justice also found that Sison had lied under oath. When asked about the actual procedure, Sison admitted that notices were distributed by "drawing of lots" because few newspapers joined the raffle. He also could not explain why he failed to respond to a Court Administrator's directive to submit certified copies of raffle minutes—a failure the Court interpreted as proof that no raffles were ever conducted.

The Rules on Raffling Court Notices

The Court cited Administrative Order No. 3 (October 19, 1984), which governs extrajudicial foreclosure procedures. The raffle requirement is not a mere formality. It exists to ensure equal distribution of cases and to prevent fraternization between sheriffs and applicant-mortgagees such as banks and financing companies.

More importantly, Section 2 of P.D. 1079 is explicit: the executive judge—not the sheriff—shall personally distribute judicial notices to qualified newspapers by raffle. The only exception is when just one newspaper operates in a province or city.

Sison had no authority to conduct the raffle or to decide that distribution could be done by drawing lots. By doing so, he exceeded his authority and committed misconduct that "destroys the image of the Judiciary."

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found Sison guilty of violating Supreme Court Circular No. 63-96 in relation to P.D. 1079. He was fined P10,000 with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

The Court also noted that Executive Judge Inocencio M. Jaurique appeared to have evaded his duty to conduct the raffles. However, since the judge had already retired, the recommendation against him became moot.

Practical Takeaways

• Raffles are mandatory. Court notices for publication must be raffled among qualified newspapers, and only the executive judge may conduct the distribution.
• Sheriffs cannot improvise. A sheriff has no authority to replace the raffle with "drawing of lots" or any other arrangement, even if few newspapers participate.
• After-the-fact compliance is not compliance. Raffling notices only after they have been returned or questioned does not cure the violation.
• Court personnel face strict standards. Sheriffs are agents of the law; their conduct must be beyond suspicion. Misconduct in procedure can result in fines and administrative penalties.
• Documentation matters. Failure to produce raffle minutes when directed by the Court Administrator can be treated as evidence that no raffle occurred.

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