A.M. No. P-141. May 31, 1976.
ELIAS JEREOS, JR., complainant, vs. SEVERIANO REBLANDO, SR., Clerk of Court, City Court of General Santos and Ex-Oficio City Sheriff, respondent.

FACTS

This administrative case stemmed from a letter-complaint filed by Elias Jereos, Jr., a newspaper representative, against respondent Severiano Reblando, Sr., the Clerk of Court and Ex-Oficio Sheriff of the City Court of General Santos. The complainant charged that respondent, in conducting raffles for the award of legal notices for publication, allowed certain newspapers like “The Whip” and the “Mindanao Times” to participate despite allegedly not being of general circulation in General Santos City. Jereos insinuated that these acts, which he claimed violated Republic Act No. 4569 (as amended) and Presidential Decree No. 19, were motivated by kickbacks or personal considerations, thereby constituting graft and corrupt practices.
In his defense, respondent Reblando argued that the complaint was a selfish attempt to monopolize the publication of notices. He invoked Presidential Decree No. 19, issued after the proclamation of Martial Law, which liberalized the strict requirements for newspaper participation in such raffles to accommodate the operational realities during the emergency period. An investigation was conducted by Judge Andres O. Lorenzo, who submitted a report finding procedural irregularities in the respondent’s conduct of the raffles but refrained from making a specific recommendation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Severiano Reblando, Sr. is administratively liable for his conduct in the raffle and distribution of legal notices for publication.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court emphasized that all court personnel, especially those holding significant positions like Clerk of Court, must conduct themselves in a manner beyond reproach to preserve public faith in the judiciary. While the investigation did not conclusively prove the allegations of graft or a direct violation of the specific decrees, the Court found that respondent’s actions created an atmosphere of suspicion and impropriety.
The Court noted the investigator’s findings of irregularities, such as awarding notices to a newspaper that subsequently passed them to another publication in a different locality, and allowing participation over objections without adequate verification of circulation claims. These acts, though perhaps not malicious, demonstrated a lack of due care and circumspection required of a court officer tasked with a discretionary function involving public funds and trust. The Court held that such conduct, which casts doubt on the integrity of court processes, cannot be tolerated. Consequently, the Court imposed a penalty of three months suspension without pay, deeming a mere reprimand as insufficient for the potential harm caused to the judiciary’s reputation. The decision serves as a warning that court personnel must uphold the highest standards of propriety to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.