G.R. No. RTJ-92-802. July 5, 1993.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. HON. GENARO C. GINES, as Presiding Judge, Branch 26; MA. GORGONIA L. FLORES, Court Interpreter and Officer-in-Charge, Branch 26; ROSIE M. MUNAR, Stenographic Reporter, Branch 26, PACITA B. DIAZ, Staff Assistant IV, Office of the Clerk of Court; MA. CONCEPCION B. DIAZ, Staff Assistant I, Branch 26, and ALFREDO V. LACSAMANA, JR., Staff Assistant II, Branch 26, all of the RTC, San Fernando, La Union, respondents.

FACTS

The Office of the Court Administrator filed an administrative complaint against Judge Genaro C. Gines and several court personnel of the RTC, San Fernando, La Union, for Dishonesty; Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; and Violation of Supreme Court Administrative Orders and Circulars. The complaint was based on a report by Clerk of Court Atty. Aurora P. Sanglay and an affidavit of respondent Ma. Concepcion B. Diaz, alleging a deliberate and surreptitious scheme to bypass the mandatory raffling of cases. Specifically, from 1986 to 1991, numerous cases (including Special Proceedings, Land Registration, Civil, and Criminal cases) were directly assigned to Branch 26 (presided by Judge Gines) and Branch 27 without undergoing raffle. The report indicated that court personnel in charge of docketing—Pacita Diaz (Land Registration), Ma. Concepcion Diaz (Special Proceedings), and Alfredo Lacsamana, Jr. (Civil Cases)—did not submit these cases for raffle. Ma. Concepcion Diaz’s affidavit implicated Judge Gines, Ma. Gorgonia Flores, and Rosie Munar in pressuring and intimidating her to ensure chosen cases were not forwarded for raffle, citing specific instances like Special Proceeding No. 1965 (involving Judge Gines’s aunt) and No. 1967. Respondents failed to file timely answers despite extensions, leading the Court to deem some answers waived. The case was referred to Justice Nathanael P. De Pano, Jr. of the Court of Appeals for investigation. During the investigation, parties submitted affidavits and entered into stipulations of facts but presented no testimonial evidence, with respondents invoking self-incrimination. Justice De Pano’s report confirmed the anomaly, noting that from 1986 to 1988 alone, 136 cases were improperly assigned without raffle.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents are administratively liable for Dishonesty, Violation of Anti-Graft laws, and Supreme Court directives due to their collective involvement in bypassing the mandatory raffling of cases.

RULING

The Court found the respondents administratively liable based on the evidence and Justice De Pano’s report. The raffling of cases is mandatory to ensure impartial assignment and prevent “court-shopping.” The respondents’ actions constituted gross misconduct and dishonesty, undermining public confidence in the judiciary.
1. Judge Genaro C. Gines was DISMISSED from service with prejudice to re-employment in any government agency, with forfeiture of all benefits except earned leave credits. His dismissal was immediately executory.
2. Ma. Gorgonia L. Flores and Alfredo V. Lacsamana, Jr. were SUSPENDED for six (6) months each without pay, effective immediately upon service of the decision.
3. Ma. Concepcion B. Diaz was SUSPENDED for three (3) months without pay, effective immediately.
4. The case against Pacita B. Diaz was DISMISSED due to her demise.
5. The case against Rosie M. Munar was DISMISSED for lack of substantial evidence.
The Court also directed the Office of the Court Administrator to evaluate a separate letter from Executive Judge Braulio Yaranon for further recommendations.