Penera v. Dalocanog
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Nicomedes Penera filed a letter-complaint against Municipal Circuit Judge Crescencio R. Dalocanog, charging him with ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, and corrupt practices. Procedural History: The complaint stemmed from the respondent judge's dismissal of a forcible entry case (Civil Case No. 17) filed by the complainant against Mrs. Severa Vda. de Literato. The respondent dismissed the complaint on grounds of prescription and lack of jurisdiction, citing a boundary dispute. The complainant argued that the action had not prescribed and that no boundary issue was raised. He also alleged a delay of three years in the disposition of the case, from November 11, 1975, to September 4, 1978, without trial on the merits. Further allegations included the respondent notarizing a deed of sale where four vendors did not appear, sign, or acknowledge the document before him, and collecting excessive notarial fees. The Petition: The complainant sought administrative sanctions against the respondent judge.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed ignorance of the law and gross incompetence in dismissing Civil Case No. 17. Whether the respondent judge was guilty of corrupt practices in notarizing a deed of sale and collecting excessive notarial fees. Whether the respondent judge's prolonged inaction in disposing of Civil Case No. 17 constituted a violation of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
Ruling
The respondent judge is found guilty of violating Section 5 of Republic Act 296 (Judiciary Act of 1948) and acting beyond the scope of his authority as a notary public ex officio. He is reprimanded and admonished, with a warning that repetition of the offense will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of ignorance of the law and gross incompetence in dismissing Civil Case No. 17: The Supreme Court noted that the complainant had appealed the dismissal to the Court of First Instance. Consequently, the issue of erroneous dismissal, which formed the basis for the imputation of ignorance of the law, had become moot and academic. The Court stated that an issue that is sub judice cannot be ventilated in an administrative matter. Therefore, this specific imputation was rendered moot by the pendency of the appeal. On the issue of corrupt practices in notarization and excessive fees: The Court found the respondent judge's act of notarizing a deed of sale not connected with the exercise of his official duties to be improper. It reiterated the principle that a notary ex officio should only notarize documents related to the performance of his official duties, citing Borre vs. Moya, et al. The Court did not explicitly rule on the charge of collecting excessive notarial fees, but the improper notarization itself was a ground for administrative action. On the issue of prolonged inaction and violation of the Judiciary Act of 1948: The Court emphasized that the unexplained and prolonged inaction of the respondent judge in disposing of Civil Case No. 17 for three years could not be ignored. The Court highlighted that a motion to dismiss filed in May 1978 was only resolved on September 4, 1978, indicating slothfulness for almost four months. This was deemed a manifest defiance of Section 5 of Republic Act 296, which mandates judges to decide cases and motions within ninety (90) days from submission. The Court stressed the importance of prompt performance of duties and speedy administration of justice, citing Custodio Escabillas vs. Hon. Luis D. Martinez and Sancho vs. Judge Antonio Moleta, and quoting Justice Malcolm on the deplorable consequences of the "law's delay."
Main Doctrine
A judge is reprimanded and admonished for gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, and corrupt practices, specifically for the undue delay in the disposition of a case and for notarizing a deed of sale not connected with the exercise of his official duties, violating Section 5 of Republic Act 296 (Judiciary Act of 1948) and the rules governing a notary public ex officio.