Morales, Sr. v. Dumlao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Efren Morales, Sr. charged Judge Cesar M. Dumlao and Clerk of Court Danilo B. Ramones with abuse of authority and violation of Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90. The complaint stemmed from the Judge's act of notarizing the revocation of a General Power of Attorney (GPA) granted by Marciano Morales to the complainant, and the subsequent issuance of an order deputizing the Clerk of Court to supervise the harvest of palay from agricultural land subject to an ejectment case. Procedural History: The complainant alleged that the notarization of the GPA revocation violated SC Circular No. 1-90, which limits the notarial functions of MTC/MCTC judges to acts connected with their official duties. The complainant also assailed the issuance of the order for supervision of harvest without a hearing, characterizing it as a restraining order. The Petition: The complainant sought administrative sanctions against the respondent judge and clerk of court.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Cesar M. Dumlao violated Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90 by notarizing the revocation of the General Power of Attorney. Whether respondent Judge Cesar M. Dumlao committed an abuse of authority in issuing the order deputizing the Clerk of Court to supervise the harvest without a prior hearing. Whether respondent Clerk of Court Danilo B. Ramones abused his authority in supervising the harvest of palay.
Ruling
The Supreme Court adopted the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Respondent Judge Cesar M. Dumlao was ordered to pay a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a stern warning against repetition of similar offenses. The complaint against respondent Clerk of Court Danilo B. Ramones was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of notarizing the revocation of the General Power of Attorney: The Court held that respondent Judge Cesar M. Dumlao violated Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90. The circular explicitly states that MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex officio only in the notarization of documents connected with the exercise of their official functions and duties. They are prohibited from undertaking the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts, and other acts of conveyances that do not directly relate to their judicial functions. The respondent Judge's claim of inadvertence in notarizing the revocation of the power of attorney betrayed a deficiency in the circumspection demanded of those in the judicial robe, constituting negligence and carelessness contrary to Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that a judge should perform official duties honestly, impartially, and with diligence. Judges are expected to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence, keeping abreast with legal changes and decisions of the Supreme Court. On the issue of issuing the order deputizing the Clerk of Court without a hearing: The Court found that the prevailing circumstances demanded immediate action to protect the harvest of palay from the agricultural land, which was the subject of the ejectment case. The respondent Judge contended that the order was issued to protect the harvest. While the issuance of such an order without a hearing could be questioned, the Court, in this instance, did not find sufficient grounds to hold the respondent Judge administratively liable for this specific act, considering the nature of the property and the need for preservation. On the issue of the Clerk of Court's abuse of authority: The Court found no sufficient evidence to hold respondent Clerk of Court Danilo B. Ramones administratively liable. In administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations by substantial evidence. The Court noted that the Clerk of Court merely acted under the specific orders of the judge. His duty was ministerial in implementing the judge's instructions to supervise the harvest and deposit it in a bonded warehouse. The respondent Clerk of Court denied selling the palay over complainant's objections, stating that it was deposited and the parties were informed. The presumption of regularity in the performance of duties prevailed in the absence of contrary evidence.
Main Doctrine
Judges must be conversant with basic legal principles and administrative circulars. Notarizing documents unrelated to their official functions, even if claimed to be inadvertent, constitutes a violation of judicial conduct and administrative rules, warranting disciplinary action.