Adm. Matter No. RTJ-88-216. March 1, 1993.

BEN MEDINA, complainant,

vs.
JUDGE LETICIA MARIANO DE GUIA, RTC-BALANGA, BATAAN, BRANCH 3, respondent.

Facts:

Judge De Guia tried three adoption cases. The charge states that notices of hearing were
published without the benefit of a raffle conducted by the executive judge as required under
Presidential Decree No. 1079 which provided in Section 2 and Section 6 as the penalty.

Estella Bacarra, Staff Assistant I in Judge De Guia’s sala testified in the hearings conducted
by the Justice Ricardo L. Pronove, Jr. of the Court of Appeals. Bacarra states that coming directly
from Judge De Guia's chambers, Deputy Sheriff Ricardo Navarro said "Pinakukuha po ni Judge De
Guia, she would be the one to give the copies to the publishers." As a result, no copy was sent to the
RTC clerk of court and no raffle of the notices in the three cases was conducted.

It was also shown that the copies of the orders intended for the parties were not released
through or by Bascarra, but were given to the parties by Process Server Ricardo Flores and Deputy
Sheriff Navarro. The notations of these two employees to that effect were written on the back of the
orders.

However, the different orders were published to different publishing company namely Mt.
Samat Weekely Forum, and Bataan Journal which Ben P. Medina was the publisher. Medina
revealed that the orders were given to Zeny Soriano, business manager of the Mt. Samat Weekly
Forum, and Esperanza Poblete of the Bataan Journal, by Judge De Guia.

Judge De Guia denies the allegations and conducted an inquiry. She found out that it was
the parties themselves or their counsels who requested for copies either from Process Server Flores
or Deputy Sheriff Navarro, and caused their publication.

Issue:
WON Judge De Guia is guilty of charge in publication of notice of hearing without the benefit
of a raffle

Ruling:

The Court noted Justice Pronove Jr. careful investigation of the foregoing evidences; Justice
Pronove Jr. states that the testimony of Estela Bacarra directly links the respondent Judge to the
publication of the orders containing the notices of hearing and Justice Pronove Jr. finds her
testimony credible and deserving of weight. It is also shown that only Judge De Guia had the power
to authorize the release of the orders to the parties on the three cases. She alone could change the
usual procedure of releasing orders by directing the process server and deputy sheriff to give to the
parties the copies intended for the clerk of court. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that the two minor
court process servers would act the way they did without the prior authorization of Judge De Guia.

Moreover, Justice Pronove Jr. didn’t believe the contention of Judge De Guia regarding on
the petitioners and their lawyers simply went to the publishers and made arrangements for the
publication without any court approval as Judge De Guia’s implying to. The publication of the orders
was a legal requirement well-known to the parties and their lawyers, no one among them would have
dared to publish the orders without the go signal of the court. And with these, only Judge De Guia
could have given that approval and it is shown by the fact that she directed her process server and
deputy sheriff to give copies of the orders to the petitioners and their lawyers. The act of giving said
copies could not have been for any purpose other than publication because as testified to by Estela
Bascarra, she had already mailed to the parties their copies of the orders.

The Court agreed with the investigating Justice's evaluation of the evidence of the parties
and accordingly finds Judge De Guia guilty of the charge in publication of notice of hearing without
the benefit of a raffle. JUDGE LETICIA MARIANO DE GUIA, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3,
Balanga, Bataan, will be DISMISS FROM THE SERVICE with forfeiture of all her accrued retirement
benefits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the
government, including government-owned or controlled corporations.