Opus v. Bornia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Maurecia Opus charged Municipal Judge Vicente Bornia with dishonesty, graft and corruption, abuse of authority, and conduct unbecoming of a government official. Opus alleged that on July 16, 1976, respondent prepared and notarized a contract of sale for a parcel of land owned by Ramon Tabotabo in favor of complainant for P28,000.00. Complainant claimed she handed the money to Tabotabo through respondent. She further alleged that respondent repeatedly told her the contract was not ready, and when it was finally given to her about a month later, it indicated a consideration of P11,000.00, not P28,000.00. Complainant also discovered the contract stated she bought less land than the remaining portion, with a portion sold to another buyer. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu for investigation. The complainant failed to appear at two scheduled hearings. She subsequently filed an Affidavit of Retraction, stating her claims were due to a misunderstanding and that she was no longer interested in pursuing the case. Despite the retraction, the Investigating Judge proceeded with the reception of evidence for the respondent. The Investigating Judge recommended dismissal of the complaint and exoneration of the respondent. The Supreme Court noted that the respondent admitted acting as a Notary Public ex officio. The Petition: The complainant prayed for the annulment of the Deed of Absolute Sale, return of the P28,000.00 and back taxes, and reimbursement of P1,000.00 as notarial fee.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed dishonesty, graft and corruption, abuse of authority, and conduct unbecoming of a government official. Whether the complainant is entitled to the return of the P28,000.00 and back taxes. Whether the respondent judge should reimburse the complainant P1,000.00 as notarial fee.
Ruling
The charge against respondent Judge is dismissed. He is, however, directed to account for the notarial fee fixed by law in notarizing the deed of sale in question by paying the sum to the Municipal Treasurer of Tuburan, Cebu and submit proof of such payment to this Court within ten (10) days upon notice of this Decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charges of dishonesty, graft and corruption, abuse of authority, and conduct unbecoming of a government official: The Court noted that the complainant failed to appear at the scheduled hearings before the Investigating Judge and subsequently filed an Affidavit of Retraction. In her retraction, the complainant stated that her claims were due to a misunderstanding and that she had realized the respondent judge's claims were true. She admitted it was her fault that she did not know about the corrected documents because she did not go to the judge's office despite being informed to do so. She also stated she never knew the first document was corrected and the corresponding tax declarations were also corrected. Given the complainant's retraction and failure to substantiate her claims, the Investigating Judge recommended exoneration, which the Supreme Court found to be supported by the facts and evidence on record. Therefore, the charges were dismissed. On the entitlement to the return of P28,000.00 and back taxes: The complainant prayed for the return of P28,000.00 and back taxes. However, the Court found no basis to order the return of the P28,000.00. This is primarily because the complainant failed to appear at the hearings to substantiate her claim, and she executed an affidavit of desistance. Furthermore, the respondent judge denied receiving the full amount, stating he was merely an observer in the counting and handing of money. The respondent also claimed that the vendor, Tabotabo, explained the discrepancy in area to the complainant and that it was stipulated in the deed of sale. The Court did not find sufficient evidence to support the claim for the return of the P28,000.00 and back taxes. On the reimbursement of P1,000.00 as notarial fee: The complainant asked for reimbursement of P1,000.00 as notarial fee. The Court acknowledged that the respondent judge acted as a Notary Public ex officio. However, the payment of P1,000.00 for notarial services was not substantiated due to the complainant's failure to appear and her affidavit of desistance. The respondent judge denied receiving the P1,000.00, stating he only received P120.00 for expenses for documentary and science stamps and transfer fees. While the Court found no basis to order the return of the P1,000.00 as prayed for by the complainant, it emphasized the duty of the respondent to account for the notarial fee prescribed by law as government funds. Thus, the respondent was directed to pay the lawful notarial fee to the Municipal Treasurer.
Main Doctrine
While a Municipal Judge acting as a notary public ex officio is empowered to perform any act within the competency of a notary public, they are required to account for the notarial fees prescribed by law as government funds.