A.M. No. P-116 September 30, 1976
Atty. Felixberto Bayani, complainant, vs. Marcelo Buenaventura and Francisco Evangelista, Special Deputy Clerk of Court and Deputy Clerk of Court, respectively, CFI, Pasig, Rizal, respondents.

FACTS

Atty. Felixberto Bayani, Clerk of Court of the Court of Agrarian Relations, filed a complaint alleging an anomaly in the raffle of criminal cases at the CFI, Pasig, on April 27, 1973. He discovered that the original raffle sheet for Criminal Case No. 8089, which had been properly raffled to Branch XIII, was altered. The number “13” was superimposed with “21,” and corresponding Roman numerals were changed to camouflage the act. Bayani secured untampered copies from other court branches confirming the original assignment to Branch XIII, proving the original document was falsified. He requested an investigation and that the case be sent to its proper branch.
The matter was investigated by Judge Pedro Revilla. The evidence established that after the raffle, respondent Marcelo Buenaventura, the Special Deputy Clerk in charge, retained the original raffle sheet. The alteration was discovered when respondent Francisco Evangelista showed the tampered sheet to Bayani. Buenaventura later attempted to correct the entry by superimposing “13” over the “21.” The investigation found that numerous personnel had access to the document after the raffle due to Buenaventura’s failure to secure it properly.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Marcelo Buenaventura is administratively liable for the tampering of the raffle sheet.

RULING

Yes, respondent Marcelo Buenaventura is guilty of negligence. The Supreme Court emphasized that court personnel must exercise utmost diligence to preserve the integrity of judicial processes, particularly the raffle system, which is designed to ensure impartial case assignment. Department of Justice Circular No. 26 and Supreme Court Circular No. 7 mandate safeguarding raffle results to prevent any suspicion of judge-shopping or manipulation.
The legal logic rests on Buenaventura’s breach of a positive duty. As the officer in charge of the raffle, he was responsible for the custody and security of the original raffle sheet immediately after the proceedings. His own admission that “all persons in the sala during and immediately after the raffle had access to the original” demonstrated a grave lack of vigilance. This negligence created the opportunity for the unauthorized alteration, thereby undermining public confidence in the court’s integrity. While there was no direct evidence he performed the falsification, his failure to exercise due care in safeguarding a vital court record constituted neglect of official duty, a less grave offense under Presidential Decree No. 6 and relevant Civil Service rules. The Court imposed a one-month suspension without pay. Regarding respondent Francisco Evangelista, the Court deemed it unnecessary to rule as he had already been dismissed from the service in a prior administrative case.