Case Digest: FERDINAND S. BASCOS v. ATTY. RAYMUNDO A. RAMIREZ

FERDINAND S. BASCOS v. ATTY. RAYMUNDO A. RAMIREZ

543 SCRA 238 (2008)

Executive judges are required under Presidential Decree 1079 to distribute Judicial Notices, Advertisements for Public Biddings, Notices of Auction Sales and Other Similar Notices by raffle for publication to qualified newspapers or periodicals.

Ferdiand Bascos reported, by letter, to then Executive Judge Juan Bigornia, Jr., that Atty. Raymundo Ramirez had failed to follow the judge’s verbal order to designate a day of the week for the raffling of judicial and extra-judicial notices and other court processes requiring publication and for having acted partially, by awarding to another newspaper, the Isabela Profile, 13 of the 14 notices of extra-judicial foreclosure filed by the Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag Ibig Fund), all without the benefit of raffle and the requisite notices to the public. A complaint was thereafter filed against Ramirez for neglect of duty, arrogance and willful and deliberate violation of the circulars of the Supreme Court.

Ramirez denied the allegations of Bascos, claiming that he was merely a victim of the business rivalry between Bascos and the Isabela Profile. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Ramirez’s defenses untenable and thus recommended that he be fined and sternly warned that similar infractions in the future will be dealt with more severely

ISSUE:

Whether or not Ramirez may be held liable for dereliction of duty, gross neglect, insubordination and for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility of Lawyers

HELD:

Executive judges are required under Presidential Decree 1079 to distribute those notices for publication, by raffle, to qualified newspapers or periodicals, and such raffle is to be conducted personally by the executive judge after designating a regular working day and a definite time each week for such purpose. Corollarily, a failure to follow this procedure shall merit the penalty of fine of not less than P5,000 nor more than P20,000 and imprisonment for not less than 6 months nor more than 2 years. In addition, the offending executive judge or court personnel will be perpetually disqualified from holding any public office in the government.

The stringent provisions of P.D. 1079 were intended to prevent unfair competition, meant ultimately for the protection of the press. Moreover, the Supreme Court, in En Banc Resolution No. A.M. 01-01-07-SC dated October 16, 2001, clearly provided uniform and comprehensive guidelines in the accreditation of newspapers and other periodicals seeking to publish notices mentioned in PD 1079 and Circular 5-98 dated January 12, 1998.

Thus, Ramirez, as a lawyer and an employee of the Court, ought, therefore, to know the requirements in and the importance of distributing notices for publication. He is expected to keep his own record of the applications for extra-judicial foreclosure and the minutes of the raffle thereof, in order to effectively assist the judge in the performance of his functions. In the same vein, it is incumbent upon him to help the judge devise an efficient and recording and filing system in the court so that no disorderliness can affect the flow of cases, particularly, foreclosure cases, and their speedy disposition.

Corollarily, Ramirez’s failure to heed the mandate of the Supreme Court directives constitutes unjustified and neglectful conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the judicial system and the public, and signifies inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. As a member of the bar, Ramirez is, moreover, charged with the duty to obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.

Irrefragably, Ramirez’s continued failure to submit to the Executive Judge, copies of all applications for extra-judicial foreclosure from December, 2002 up to February 27, 2003, his stand of ignoring the Executive Judge’s earlier directive for him to comment on Bascos’s letter complaint and the more than 20 instances that he failed to include in the raffle the notices for publication, not only reveals an obstinate refusal to perform his official duty and to comply with a direct order of a superior but, more importantly, points to a clear dereliction and gross neglect of duty and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.