Borre v. Moya
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Arnaldo R. Borre charged Judges Felix L. Moya and Gumersindo Arcilla with serious misconduct and grave abuse of discretion. The charges against Judge Moya stemmed from his issuance of a restraining order on September 8, 1977, in Civil Case No. 886, filed by Calvin R. Borre against Arnaldo R. Borre, before the case was raffled. The charges against Judge Arcilla involved his alleged engagement in business, collection of professional and notarial fees while acting as ex officio notary, and notarization of a deed of sale despite knowledge of a prior sale. Procedural History: Judge Moya issued a restraining order on September 8, 1977, before the case was raffled. The case was subsequently assigned to him, and he issued an order of injunction on November 2, 1977, and a writ on November 28, 1977. He then inhibited himself, and the case was reassigned. A compromise settlement between the brothers was approved on February 2, 1978. Arnaldo Borre later requested the withdrawal of his complaint against Judge Arcilla due to a misunderstanding and mootness. The Petition: The administrative complaint sought disciplinary action against the respondent judges for alleged violations of Supreme Court circulars and rules regarding judicial conduct and practice.
Issue(s)
Whether Judge Moya violated Supreme Court Circular No. 7 by issuing a restraining order before the case was raffled. Whether Judge Moya failed to comply with the requirements of Circular No. 7 regarding the raffle proceedings. Whether Judge Arcilla committed serious misconduct by engaging in business and acting as an ex officio notary public for private transactions. Whether Judge Arcilla's actions were prejudicial to public service.
Ruling
Judge Moya is censured and ordered to pay a fine equivalent to his salary for ten (10) days. The case against Judge Arcilla is dismissed for having become moot.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Judge Moya violating Supreme Court Circular No. 7 by issuing a restraining order before the case was raffled: The Court held that Judge Moya violated Circular No. 7 of the Supreme Court dated September 23, 1974. The circular explicitly prohibits an Executive Judge from acting on any incidental or interlocutory matter in any case not yet assigned to any branch by raffle. Judge Moya's issuance of a restraining order on the same day the complaint was filed, without a special raffle, constituted a clear violation of this prohibition. His justifications, such as the case being placed on his table by his clerk or the need to prevent irreparable injury, were deemed insufficient to excuse his negligence and non-compliance with the mandatory procedure. The Court emphasized that he could have easily ascertained the status of the raffle and that alternative measures, like filing a notice of lis pendens, could have prevented irreparable injury without violating the circular. On the issue of Judge Moya failing to comply with the requirements of Circular No. 7 regarding the raffle proceedings: The Court found that Judge Moya admitted to not complying with the requirements of Circular No. 7 concerning the raffle. Specifically, he admitted that no stenographic notes were taken of the raffle and that he did not initial the assignment of the case to his sala. His explanation that this was due to the oversight of his clerk was found unsatisfactory. The Court stated that his comment on the charges was "artful and disingenuous" and did not enhance his image as a judge. The failure to follow the prescribed procedure for raffling cases undermined the integrity and transparency of the judicial process. On the issue of Judge Arcilla committing serious misconduct by engaging in business and acting as an ex officio notary public for private transactions: The Court ruled that respondent city judge was not empowered to act as a notary public ex officio for private transactions. It clarified that a city judge is not among those enumerated as ex officio notaries in the Revised Administrative Code, nor is there statutory authorization in the charter of Davao City or the Judiciary Law. The Court emphasized that a notary ex officio should only notarize documents connected with the exercise of his official duties and should not compete with private practitioners. Judge Arcilla's act of notarizing private documents and signing as "Notary Public Ex-Officio, City Judge" obliterated the distinction between a regular notary and a notary ex officio. Furthermore, engaging in private business without written permission from the Supreme Court is a violation of civil service rules and grounds for disciplinary action. On the issue of Judge Arcilla's actions being prejudicial to public service: The Court implicitly found Judge Arcilla's actions prejudicial to public service by holding that city judges are not authorized to act as notaries ex officio for private transactions and that engaging in private business without permission is prohibited. The Court noted that city judges in Davao City receive substantial annual compensation, and the public expects them to devote full time to their judicial work. Engaging in private business and acting as a legal consultant for private parties, especially when it involves notarizing documents related to such business, detracts from the dignity of the office and can create conflicts of interest or the appearance thereof, thereby prejudicing public service.
Main Doctrine
Judges are prohibited from acting on any incidental or interlocutory matter in any case not yet assigned to any branch by raffle, and must strictly adhere to raffle procedures. City judges are not authorized to act as notaries public ex officio for private transactions, and engaging in private business without permission is a violation of civil service rules.