Lapena, Jr. v. Marcos and Roque
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Estanislao G. Lapena, Jr. charged Judge Martonino R. Marcos and Atty. Crisostomo T. Roque with dishonesty, breach of trust, and gross misconduct. All parties were former members of the Board of Directors of Tarlac Electric Cooperative, Inc. (TARELCO). The complainant alleged that respondents attended board meetings and transacted business during office hours, receiving compensation while making it appear they were on duty and receiving salaries. It was also alleged that respondents conspired to divert cooperative funds for personal accident policies. Specifically, Judge Marcos was accused of receiving P4,236.00 and P1,500.00 as ex officio notary public for ratifying membership applications, knowing it violated TARELCO's by-laws. Procedural History: The case was filed directly with the Supreme Court. The Petition: The complainant prayed for the dismissal of respondents from public service and disbarment.
Issue(s)
Whether respondents committed dishonesty, breach of trust, and gross misconduct by attending board meetings during office hours and receiving compensation. Whether respondents conspired to divert cooperative funds for personal accident policies. Whether respondent Judge Marcos committed misconduct by receiving notarial fees for ratifying membership applications.
Ruling
The charges against respondent Atty. Crisostomo T. Roque were dismissed for lack of merit. The charges against respondent Judge Martonino Marcos were also dismissed for lack of merit, except for the matter of notarial fees. Respondent Judge Martonino Marcos is ordered to account and turn over to the Government the sums of P4,236.00 and P1,500.00 received as notarial fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charges of dishonesty, breach of trust, and gross misconduct by attending board meetings during office hours and receiving compensation: The Court found the explanations of the respondents satisfactory. Respondent Judge Marcos asserted that board meetings were held on Saturdays afternoons, a time when judges do not hold sessions, and that members receive per diems only for attended meetings. He also noted that attendance at seminars under the National Electrification Administration (NEA) is considered official time. Respondent Roque denied the charges, stating he performed his duties religiously and honestly, and that he was not yet a member of the board when the policy for accident insurance was adopted. The Court considered that Presidential Decree No. 269, governing electric cooperatives, did not explicitly disqualify judges from being members or directors, although a subsequent policy enjoining judges from such participation was later adopted. However, since respondent judge served prior to this explicit policy, his participation was deemed qualified. On the charge of conspiring to divert cooperative funds for personal accident policies: The Court found the explanations of the respondents satisfactory. Respondent Judge Marcos explained that the group accident insurance policy was a board policy (Policy No. 1-20) adopted on August 14, 1976, providing P25,000.00 coverage, which was later amended by Resolution No. 102-77 on July 23, 1977, increasing the coverage to P50,000.00. This amendment was sanctioned by the NEA and ratified by the members. Respondent Roque also denied conspiring, stating he was not a board member when the initial policy was adopted and that the amendment was made with the complainant's advice. On the charge that respondent Judge Marcos committed misconduct by receiving notarial fees for ratifying membership applications: Respondent Judge Marcos admitted receiving P4,236.00 and P1,500.00 as notarial fees for ratifying membership applications, stating he was prevailed upon to do so in the interest of the cooperative to save costs, as no other notary public would accept P1.00 for such ratification. He considered these payments as notarial service fees, not compensation or salary, and noted that the complainant, as general manager, approved the payment. The Court, referencing Section 76 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, affirmed that municipal judges, in their capacity as ex officio notaries public, are empowered to perform any act within the competency of a notary public. The Court also acknowledged the demands of public service and the convenience for the public, especially in rural areas with few regular notaries. However, the Court ruled that officers acting as notaries public ex officio are required by law to account for and turn over such fees to the Government. Therefore, respondent Judge Marcos was ordered to account for and turn over the collected sums.
Main Doctrine
While judges are generally enjoined from acting as directors of electric cooperatives, this policy was not yet categorical at the time respondent judge served, thus qualifying him. However, notarial fees collected by a judge acting as ex officio notary public must be accounted for and turned over to the government.