ChanRobles Virtual law Library
OCA-IPI No. 04-2061-P.
DANILO N. SILVESTRECE v. CLERK OF COURT FIDELINA Q. GRAPILON AND SHERIFF IV EDGAR V. SUPERADA, BOTH OF THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF COURT, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CARIGARA, LEYTE
Third Division
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR. 29, 2006
OCA-IPI No. 04-2061-P (Danilo N. Silvestrece v. Clerk of Court Fidelina Q. Grapilon and Sheriff IV Edgar V. Superada, both of the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Carigara, Leyte )
Under consideration is the administrative complaint filed by Danilo N. Silvestrece (Complainant) charging respondents Atty. Fidelina Q. Grapilon and Edgar V. Superada, Clerk of Court and Sheriff IV, respectively, of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Carigara, Leyte of violating Supreme Court En Banc Resolution A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC [1] cralaw and Presidential Decree No. 1079 (PD 1079). [2] cralaw
Complainant is the publisher/editor of Sunday Punch Publication (Sunday Punch) which is duly accredited to publish legal and judicial notices from the branches of RTC Carigara, Leyte. Me alleges that Atty. Grapilon awards notices for publication of cases without conducting a raffle, specifically in Special Civil Action No. 65 and Special Proceedings No. 779, wherein the notices were awarded to Leyte-Samar Daily Express and Eastern Visayas Mail, respectively, without due notice to Sunday Punch in direct contravention of Section 2 of PD 1079 [3] cralaw and Section 10 of A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC. [4] cralaw
In her Comment,
[5]
cralaw
Atty. Grapilon denies complainant's allegations,
claiming that all raffle of cases for publication is conducted under the direct
control and supervision of Executive Judge Lourdes M.G. Blanco, as evidenced by
the minutes of the raffle submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA). She adds that it is physically
impossible for her to personally award the notices of publication to the
periodicals concerned since the records of the cases that are raffled are
transmitted to the respective branches as soon as the cases are assigned. Special Civil Action No. 65 and Special
Proceedings No. 779 were raffled on
Meanwhile, respondent Edgar Superada in his Comment [7] cralaw claims that he has no participation whatsoever in the raffle of cases as the same is under the supervision of the Executive Judge and the Clerk of Court. He argues that it is his ministerial duty as sheriff to submit notices for publication to the winning accredited newspaper upon instruction of the Clerk of Court pursuant to the minutes of the raffle.
In his Reply, [8] cralaw complainant denies that Sunday Punch was given an equal share in the publication of legal notices coming from Branch 13. He claims that Atty. Grapilon was referring to legal notices coming from Branch 36 which is presided over by Judge Blanco. He argues that Atty. Grapilon has the full responsibility, together with Superada, over raffle procedures since she has overall control of the two branches.
In its Report, [9] cralaw the OCA finds that the instant complaint is not supported by evidence and recommends that the same be dismissed For lack of merit. It elucidates, to wit:
Under the law, it is the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court that (sic) distributes personally matters for publication to qualified newspapers or periodicals which distribution shall be done by raffle. x x x
The records would show that the
above cited Supreme Court Circular and En Banc Resolution A.M. No.
We adopt the findings and recommendations of the OCA.
In administrative proceedings, it is axiomatic that the complainant must prove by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. [10] cralaw In the instant case, there is no showing that respondents indeed violated the provisions of PD 1079 and A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC as alleged.
WHEREFORE, the recommendation of the OCA is APPROVED. The administrative complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Guidelines in the Accreditation of Newspapers and Periodicals seeking to publish judicial and legal notices and other similar announcements and in the raffle thereof.
[2] cralaw Revising and consolidating all laws and decrees regulating the publication of judicial notices, advertisements for public biddings, notices of auction sales and other similar notices.
[3] cralaw Presidential Decree No. 1079 (1977). Sec. 2 provides:
SEC. 2. The executive judge of the court of first instance shall designate a regular working day and a definite time each week during which the said judicial notices or advertisements shall be distributed personally by him for publication to qualified newspapers or periodicals as defined in the preceding section, which distribution shall be done by raffle: Provided, That should the circumstances require that another day be set for the purpose, he shall notify in writing the editors and publishers concerned at least three (3) days in advance of the designated date: Provided, further, That the distribution of the said notices by raffle shall be dispensed with in case only one newspaper or periodical is in operation in a particular province or city.
[4] cralaw A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC, Sec. 10 provides:
Sec. 10. xxx
The raffle of judicial or legal notices for publication shall be included in the regular raffle of cases x x x. The posting of judicial notices for publication, the raffle procedure and the publication of the results thereof shall be conducted in the same manner as the raffle of cases as provided in the Manual for Clerk of Courts. All accredited newspapers or periodicals shall as much as possible be assigned an equal number of notices to publish but the same must be done through raffle.
[5] cralaw Rollo , pp. 12-13.
[6] cralaw Id. at 39.
[7] cralaw Id. at 29-30.
[8] cralaw Id. at 35-36.
[9] cralaw Id. at 40-42.
[10] cralaw Morales, Sr. v. Judge Dumlao , 427 Phil. 56, 62 (2002).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
