Fetalino v. Macalisang
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Pablo Fetalino charged Municipal Judge Cesar L. Macalisang with malicious delay in the administration of justice for failing to decide Civil Case No. 197 (forcible entry) filed on March 7, 1961. Subsequently, Fetalino filed additional charges: falsification of public documents for certifying under oath that no case was pending decision for 90 days when Civil Case No. 197 was allegedly pending since March 1964, and violation of the Notarial Law for notarizing a deed of sale in the absence of the vendor, and infidelity in the custody of public documents due to the alleged loss of records in Civil Case No. 197. Procedural History: The Secretary of Justice referred the initial complaint to the District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Romblon for investigation. The investigating judge submitted a report with findings on all charges. The Supreme Court reviewed the report and recommendations. The Petition: This case originated from administrative complaints filed by Pablo Fetalino against Municipal Judge Cesar L. Macalisang. The core of the complaints involved alleged malicious delay in deciding a civil case, falsification of daily time records, violation of notarial law, and infidelity in the custody of documents. The Supreme Court was tasked to determine the administrative liability of the respondent judge based on the findings of the investigating judge.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Municipal Judge Cesar L. Macalisang is guilty of malicious delay in the administration of justice. Whether respondent Municipal Judge Cesar L. Macalisang is guilty of falsification of public document. Whether respondent Municipal Judge Cesar L. Macalisang is guilty of violating the Notarial Law. Whether respondent Municipal Judge Cesar L. Macalisang is guilty of infidelity in the custody of public documents.
Ruling
The Supreme Court dismissed the charges of malicious delay in the administration of justice, falsification of public document, and infidelity in the custody of public documents. However, the respondent Municipal Judge Cesar L. Macalisang was severely reprimanded for his lack of diligence in observing the requirements of the Notarial Law and was admonished to strictly comply with its provisions in the future. The rest of the charges were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of malicious delay in the administration of justice: The Court found this charge to be without merit. The records showed that Civil Case No. 197 was filed on March 7, 1961, and after trial and submission of memoranda, the respondent judge rendered a decision on September 25, 1961, well within the reglementary period. The delay in the complainant's knowledge of the decision was attributed to his counsel's failure to notify him due to election campaigning. Furthermore, the case was included in the respondent's monthly report of disposed cases for September 1961, indicating its resolution. On the charge of falsification of public document: This charge was also dismissed. The basis of the complainant's allegation was that Civil Case No. 197 was submitted for decision in March 1964 and remained undecided. However, the Court found this premise to be false, as the case was already decided by the respondent on September 25, 1961. Therefore, the certification in the daily time records that no case was pending decision for 90 days was factually correct, rendering the falsification charge unfounded. On the charge of infidelity in the custody of public documents: The Court found this charge to be without merit. The complainant alleged the loss of records for Civil Case No. 197 based on the respondent's admission in his answer. However, the records of the case were produced and marked as Exhibit "1" during the investigation, demonstrating that the records were not lost. On the charge of violation of the Notarial Law: The Court found the respondent remiss in his duties as an ex officio notary public. He notarized a deed of sale in the absence of the supposed vendor. Although the respondent acted in good faith and believed his actions were proper, explaining that the vendor could not travel and he suggested preparing the document for her signature in her presence with witnesses, the Court emphasized that this practice is fraught with pernicious consequences. Courts give full faith and credit to public instruments, thus notaries must exercise a high degree of care, fidelity, and prudence. The Court concluded that the respondent's actions, despite his good faith, constituted a violation of the Notarial Law, warranting a reprimand and admonition.
Main Doctrine
A municipal judge is accountable for undue delay in the administration of justice and must strictly comply with the Notarial Law. While good faith and precautions taken by a notary public are considered, they do not absolve the notary from liability for notarizing a document in the absence of a supposed vendor, as this practice is fraught with pernicious consequences and undermines the probative value of public instruments.