Court Clerk Dismissed for Bypassing Raffle of Judicial Notices and Taking Loans

The Supreme Court has reminded all court personnel that compassion for litigants can never justify breaking the rules. In a 2016 en banc decision, the Court dismissed a Clerk III of a Regional Trial Court for grave misconduct after he referred judicial notices to favored newspaper publishers without the required raffle and borrowed money from one of those publishers. The case underscores that court employees must uphold the integrity of judicial processes at all times.

The Facts of the Case

The complainants were accredited publishers of judicial and legal notices in Bauang, La Union. Under the rules, these notices must be distributed through a raffle system among accredited publishers to ensure fairness. The complainants accused Samuel L. Del Rosario, a Clerk III of RTC Branch 33, of conspiring with two other publishers to assign cases for publication without undergoing the raffle process.

Del Rosario admitted referring some cases directly to certain publishers without raffling them. He claimed he did so because those publishers charged lower rates, and he felt pity for poor litigants. However, he presented no evidence to support this claim.

The investigation revealed more serious misconduct. A witness testified that Del Rosario accepted money intended for his medicines in exchange for submitting a judicial notice to a particular publisher. Another publisher testified that Del Rosario approached her to publish unraffled notices, claiming the presiding judge knew about the arrangement. Del Rosario also admitted borrowing money from a publisher whenever he needed funds for his medicines.

The Issue

The central question was whether Del Rosario's acts of bypassing the raffle system and borrowing money from a person with business dealings with the court constituted grave misconduct warranting dismissal from service.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found Del Rosario guilty of gross misconduct. The Court held that his failure to refer notices for raffle was a clear violation of A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC (the guidelines on accreditation of newspapers and distribution of legal notices) in relation to Presidential Decree No. 1079.

The Court emphasized that the raffle system exists to protect the integrity of the publication process. Under P.D. 1079, the raffle prevents "cross commercialism and unfair competition" among community newspapers. The Court's guidelines were issued to ensure uniform compliance with this law and to protect the interests of litigants and the public.

The Court rejected Del Rosario's excuse of compassion for poor litigants, noting that there are proper remedies for indigent litigants. His claim of ignorance of the process was also rejected, as it demonstrated professional incompetence and cast doubt on his motives.

On the loans, the Court cited its ruling in Song v. Llegue to stress that receiving money from a person with business relations with the court is highly improper. Such conduct creates an impression that the employee could facilitate favorable outcomes, putting the entire judiciary in a bad light.

The Penalty

The Court rejected the investigating judge's recommendation of a one-year suspension. Under Section 46(A)(2) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, grave misconduct is punishable by dismissal even for a first offense. The Court ordered Del Rosario's dismissal with forfeiture of all benefits except leave credits, with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency. The Office of the Court Administrator was also directed to file appropriate criminal charges against him.

Practical Takeaways

• Court personnel must strictly follow the raffle system for judicial notices; bypassing it is grave misconduct, regardless of motive.
• Borrowing money from litigants, publishers, or anyone with business dealings with the court is a grave offense punishable by dismissal.
• Compassion for litigants does not justify violating rules; proper remedies exist for indigent parties.
• The penalty for grave misconduct is dismissal even for a first offense.
• Court employees must avoid any appearance of impropriety in both official and personal dealings.

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