A.M. No. RTJ-02-1692; January 17, 2005
Francisco C. Taguinod and Andres R. Cabanlong, complainants, vs. Judge Fe Albano Madrid of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Santiago City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, publishers of local newspapers in Isabela, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Executive Judge. They alleged irregularities in the distribution of judicial notices for publication, specifically that no raffle was conducted, notices were diverted to out-of-town newspapers like the Philippine Recorder which had no genuine circulation in the locality, and that court personnel demanded “grease money” for publication assignments. Respondent Judge, in her defense, stated she had instructed a deputy sheriff to apportion notices equally between two accredited local newspapers, including the Philippine Recorder, which maintained a local office. She denied knowledge of any extortion and claimed she only personally conducted raffles after receiving a pertinent Supreme Court circular in 1998.
During the OCA investigation, complainant Taguinod presented evidence, including checks, suggesting that Deputy Sheriff Rolando Tomas received a 10% “discount” (kickback) for distributing notices. He also proved the Philippine Recorder’s main office was in Manila. Respondent Judge admitted her procedure was not strictly compliant with Presidential Decree No. 1079 but claimed it was a long-standing practice.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for her handling of the publication of judicial notices.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found her guilty of non-compliance with Section 2 of P.D. No. 1079, which mandates that the publication of judicial notices shall be done by raffle among accredited newspapers. The legal logic is clear: the raffle requirement is a mandatory procedural safeguard designed to ensure transparency, impartiality, and equal opportunity in awarding publication contracts, which involve public funds. By delegating this non-delegable duty to a subordinate and allowing a fixed, informal apportionment system, respondent Judge failed in her duty to uphold a strict and orderly administration of justice. Her justification of established practice and her subsequent compliance only after a court circular do not excuse the prior violation.
The Court, however, absolved her of corruption, finding no evidence she approved of or benefited from the deputy sheriff’s alleged extortion. The penalty imposed was a fine equivalent to one month’s salary with a warning. The OCA was directed to investigate the deputy sheriff separately for the alleged violations of P.D. No. 1079’s anti-graft provisions. The ruling underscores that judges must meticulously observe statutory procedures governing court administrative functions to preserve public trust in the judiciary’s integrity.