Tabao v. Asis

A.M. No. RTJ-95-1330 (January 30, 1996)

Judge Asis fined P10,000 for notarizing a previously notarized Special Power of Attorney.

Facts:

This case involves a complaint filed by sisters Azucena Cinco Tabao and Jesusa Cinco Acosta against Judge Enrique C. Asis, who was serving as the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) Judge of Tacloban City. The complainants alleged that Judge Asis committed gross irregularity in the performance of his duties, violated Supreme Court circulars and regulations, and engaged in conduct unbecoming of a judge.

The core of the complaint centers around Judge Asis's notarization of a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly executed on behalf of their deceased aunt, Mariquita M. Cinco-Jocson. This SPA allowed another aunt, Cirila Cinco-Caintic, to sell a property (Lot 19-D in Quezon City) registered under Mariquita's name for P1,000,000. At the time of the sale, Mariquita was hospitalized at St. Paulas Hospital in Tacloban City.

Judge Asis admitted to notarizing the SPA but claimed it was done out of "christian charity and brotherly love" to assist in covering Mariquita's medical expenses, asserting that he did not receive any payment for this service. However, it was revealed that the SPA and an accompanying Affidavit of Consciousness had already been notarized by Notary Public Flaviano V. Caintic on June 3, 1992, prior to Judge Asis's notarization on July 23, 1992. This raised questions about the necessity and legality of Judge Asis's actions, as notarization by a party alone does not require a second notarization.

The Deputy Court Administrator, Bernardo P. Abesamis, found that Judge Asis's actions were unjustifiable and recommended that he be fined an amount equivalent to one month’s salary. The complaint also included a request for the annulment of the SPA, which was noted without action as it did not fall within the scope of the administrative proceedings.

Legal Issues:

  1. Did Judge Enrique C. Asis commit gross irregularity in the performance of his duties as a judge by notarizing the Special Power of Attorney?
  2. Did Judge Asis violate any Supreme Court circulars or regulations regarding the conduct of judges?
  3. Was Judge Asis's claim of acting out of "christian charity" a valid defense against the allegations of misconduct?

Arguments:

  • Complainants' Arguments: The complainants contended that Judge Asis's notarization of the SPA was unnecessary and improper, given that the document had already been notarized by another notary public. They argued that his actions constituted gross irregularity and abuse of authority, undermining the integrity of the judicial office.

  • Respondent's Arguments: Judge Asis defended his actions by claiming that he notarized the documents as a charitable act to help his ailing relative. He asserted that he did not receive any payment for his notarization and that his intentions were purely altruistic.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The court found Judge Asis administratively liable for the charges against him. It emphasized that judges are prohibited from engaging in private practice or providing professional legal advice, as outlined in Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court and Canon 5, Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The court noted that the notarization of private documents, such as the SPA in question, is not within the official functions of a municipal judge unless it is related to their judicial duties.

The court rejected Judge Asis's defense of "christian charity," stating that such a rationale does not excuse the violation of established legal and ethical standards. The court highlighted that municipal judges may only notarize documents connected to their official functions and that the City of Tacloban had sufficient notaries public, negating any justification for his actions.

As a result, the court imposed a fine of P10,000 on Judge Asis and warned him that any future similar conduct would result in more severe sanctions.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. Judges are prohibited from engaging in private practice or notarizing private documents unrelated to their official duties.
  2. The integrity of the judicial office must be maintained, and actions that compromise this integrity, even if claimed to be charitable, are subject to disciplinary action.
  3. The necessity for clear adherence to legal protocols in notarization is critical to uphold the rule of law and public trust in the judiciary.