Sindon v. Alzate
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Samson Sindon accused Judge Raphiel Alzate and Clerk of Court Atty. Janice Siganay Querrer of violating Republic Act No. 3019 (RA 3019) and Republic Act No. 6713 (RA 6713), and Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. Sindon alleged that Judge Alzate and Atty. Querrer conspired to give unwarranted benefit to Judge Alzate's wife, Atty. Ma. Saniata Liwliwa Gonzales-Alzate, by granting her a notarial commission and suppressing the records of her application. He further claimed they violated RA 6713 by failing to promptly act on his request for a copy of the order granting the commission. Finally, Sindon accused Judge Alzate of violating Rule 137 for failing to recuse himself from a matter involving his wife. Procedural History: Sindon filed a complaint against Judge Alzate and Atty. Querrer on October 12, 2017. Judge Alzate and Atty. Querrer submitted their respective comments, denying the allegations. Atty. Gonzales-Alzate also submitted an affidavit corroborating Judge Alzate's statements. Subsequently, Sindon filed a motion to withdraw his complaint, claiming he was misled into signing it. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reviewed the case and found Judge Alzate liable for violating Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, while recommending the dismissal of charges against Atty. Querrer. The OCA recommended a fine for Judge Alzate and a stern warning. The Petition: This case reached the Supreme Court following the OCA's recommendation. The core issues presented were the effect of Sindon's motion to withdraw the complaint, the administrative liability of Judge Alzate and Atty. Querrer for alleged inaction and giving unwarranted benefit, and Judge Alzate's liability for hearing his wife's petition for a notarial commission. The Supreme Court adopted the OCA's factual findings, ruling that Sindon's withdrawal did not divest the Court of jurisdiction. It found no conspiracy or unwarranted benefit, and that the request for documents was acted upon promptly. However, it held Judge Alzate liable for violating Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court for failing to inhibit himself from acting on his wife's notarial commission application, imposing a reprimand with a warning.
Issue(s)
What is the effect of Sindon's motion to withdraw the complaint on the present case? Can Judge Alzate and Atty. Querrer be held administratively liable for their purported inaction on Sindon's letter-request and for allegedly giving unwarranted benefit to a third party? Is Judge Alzate liable for hearing and granting his wife's petition for notarial commission?
Ruling
The Court adopted the OCA's factual findings. Sindon's motion to withdraw the complaint does not deprive the Court of its jurisdiction. Judge Alzate and Atty. Querrer cannot be held liable for inaction on the request, as the order was sent within the 15-day period prescribed by RA 6713. Atty. Querrer was not shown to have conspired to give unwarranted benefit, as she had no authority to grant or deny the petition. However, Judge Alzate was found guilty of violating Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court for failing to inhibit himself from acting on his wife's application for notarial commission. He was reprimanded with a warning.
Ratio Decidendi
On the effect of the motion to withdraw: Sindon's motion to withdraw the complaint does not divest the Court of its jurisdiction over the case. Disciplinary proceedings against members of the judiciary are not private matters but are undertaken to maintain the integrity and fitness of judicial officers. The complainant in such cases is considered a mere witness, and their desistance cannot frustrate the Court's constitutional mandate to supervise the conduct of all court personnel and ensure the prompt and efficient delivery of justice. The issue is not whether the complainant has a cause of action, but whether the respondent breached the norms and standards of the courts. On inaction and unwarranted benefit: Judge Alzate and Atty. Querrer cannot be held liable for inaction on Sindon's letter-request. The OCA correctly found that the requested order was mailed to the requesting law office five days after receipt of the letter, which is well within the fifteen (15)-day period mandated by Section 5(a) of RA 6713. Furthermore, Atty. Querrer was not shown to have engaged in any conspiracy to give unwarranted benefit to Judge Alzate's wife. As Clerk of Court, she lacked the authority to grant or deny the petition for notarial commission; this power rested with the judge. Her role in receiving and processing the documents was part of her official duties and did not indicate complicity. On Judge Alzate's violation of Section 1, Rule 137: Judge Alzate violated Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court and Section 5, Canon III of the New Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to inhibit himself from acting on his wife's application for a notarial commission. The rule on disqualification of judges explicitly prohibits a judge from sitting in a case where his or her spouse is pecuniarily interested. The process of granting a notarial commission requires the judge to conduct a summary hearing, ascertain the truth of allegations, and ensure the applicant understands the rules, all of which necessitate the exercise of discretion. By acting on his wife's petition, Judge Alzate failed to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and potential bias, which is crucial for maintaining public trust in the judiciary. The fact that the proceeding is summary and non-adversarial does not exempt the judge from the rule on compulsory disqualification, as demonstrated in previous cases where judges were held liable for similar lapses.
Main Doctrine
A judge is disqualified from sitting in a case involving his or her spouse, even if the proceeding is summary and non-adversarial, such as an application for a notarial commission, to avoid any appearance of bias or partiality.