A.M. No. MTJ-99-1238.

January 24, 2003

ENGR. EDGARDO R. TORCENDE, complainant,

vs.
JUDGE AGUSTIN T. SARDIDO, respondent.

I. Facts

Complainant is the accused in two (2) criminal cases for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. In the prior three (3)
consecutive hearings scheduled by Judge Sardido, the accused Edgardo Torcende and his counsel appeared but the
private complainant, as well as the private and public prosecutors did not. On one of the hearing the accused filed an
Omnibus Motion, one of which is to postpone trial on the day of the said hearing.

Respondent denied the Omnibus Motion for lack of notice of hearing which according to the respondent a violation of
the rule on motions.

Accused filed with the SC a complaint affidavit charging respondent judge with serious misconduct, alleging that
respondent judge had committed manifest partiality in the discharge of his official functions by giving unwarranted
benefits to the other party.

II. Issue

Whether the respondent had properly dismissed the complainant’s Omnibus motion for want of the requirement
imposed by Rule 15 Section 4 of the Rules of Court.

III. Ruling

The respondent based the contested dismissal on Rule 15 Section 4 of the Rules of Court which provides that:

“Notice of a motion shall be served by the applicant to all parties concerned, at least three (3) days before the hearing
thereof, together with a copy of the motion, and of any affidavits and other papers accompanying it. The court, however,
for good cause may hear a motion on shorter notice, especially on matters which the court may dispose on its own
motion.”

The prosecutors, however, had likewise earlier filed urgent motions for postponement on three (3) successive hearings
scheduled where they did not appear, these incidents should have been considered by respondent. Fundamental
dictates of fairness should have prompted respondent to give complainant the same measure of liberality he accorded
the prosecution.

The grant or denial of a motion for postponement is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, which should always
be predicated on the consideration that more than the mere convenience of the courts or of the parties in the case, the
ends of justice and fairness should be served thereby. After all, postponements and continuances are part and parcel of
our procedural system of dispensing justice. When no substantial rights are affected and the intention to delay is not
manifest it is sound judicial discretion to allow the same to the end that the merits of the case may be fully ventilated.

Patrick Bautista
II-LLB New Era University

ATTY. MELVIN D.C. MANE v. JUDGE MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN

A.M. No. RTJ-08-2119, 30 June 2008

 An alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the law.

Petitioner Atty. Melvin D.C. Mane filed a letter-complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) charging
respondent Judge Medel Arnaldo B. Belen of ―demeaning, humilating, and berating‖ him during a hearing of Rural Bank
of Cabuyao, Inc. v. Samue Malabanan, et al. where Mane was counsel for the plaintiff. During the proceedings, Belen
asked Mane about the latter’s law school. When Mane answered that he came from Manuel L. Quezon University
(MLQU), Belen told him: ―Then you’re not from UP. Then you cannot equate yourself to me because there is a saying
and I know this, not all law students are created equal, not all law schools are created equal, not all lawyersare created
equal despite what the Supreme Being that we all are created equal in His form and substance.‖

Belen further lambasted Mane and lectured him on the latter’s person, seemingly disregarding the case at hand.
Subsequently, the OCA, upon evaluation, found that Belen’s insulting remarks were unwarranted and inexcusable and
recommended a reprimand of Belen.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the statements and actions made by Judge Belen during the hearing constitute conduct unbecoming of a
judge and a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct

HELD:

The Court held that an alumnus of a particular law school has no monopoly of knowledge of the law. By hurdling the Bar
Examinations which the Court administers, taking of the Lawyer’s oath, and signing of the Roll of Attorneys, a lawyer is
presumed to be competent to discharge his functions and duties as, inter alia an officer of the court, irrespective of
where he obtained his law degree. For a judge to determine the fitness or competence of a lawyer primarily on his alma
mater is clearly an engagement in an argumentum ad hominem.

A judge must address the merits of the case and not the person of the counsel. If Judge Belen felt that his integrity and
dignity were being ―assaulted,‖ he acted properly when he directed complainant to explain why he should not be cited
for contempt. He went out of bounds, however, when he engaged on a supercilious legal and personal discourse.

The Court reminded members of the bench that even on the face of boorish behavior from those they deal with, they
ought to conduct themselves in a manner befitting gentlemen and high officers of the court.

EFREN T. UY, NELIA B. LEE, RODOLFO L. MENES AND QUINCIANO H. LUI VS. JUDGE ALAN L. FLORES, PRESIDING JUDGE,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 7, TUBOD, LANAO DEL NORTE, A.M. No. RTJ-12-2332 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3393-
RTJ), June 25, 2014.

“x x x.

When a law or a rule is basic, judges owe it to their office to simply apply the law. Anything less is gross ignorance of the
law. There is gross ignorance of the law when an error committed by the judge was gross or patent, deliberate or
malicious. It may also be committed when a judge ignores, contradicts or fails to apply settled law and jurisprudence
because of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. Gross ignorance of the law or incompetence cannot be excused by
a claim of good faith.[1] When an error is so gross and patent, such error produces an inference of bad faith, making the
judge liable for gross ignorance of the law.[2]

In Republic v. Judge Caguioa,[3] we said that the rules on jurisdiction are basic and judges should know them by heart.
Here, Judge Flores assumed jurisdiction over the Rule 65 petition assailing Hefti’s order when he should have dismissed
the petition for Gandarosa’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. An employee who questions the validity of his
transfer should appeal to the Civil Service Commission per Section 26(3), Chapter 5, Subtitle A, Book V of the
Administrative Code of 1987, which reads:

SEC. 26. Personnel Actions. – x x x

xxxx

(3) Transfer. x x x

x x x. If the employee believes that there is no justification for the transfer, he may appeal his case to the [Civil
Service] Commission.

Citing said provision of the Administrative Code of 1987, we ruled in Hon. Vinzons-Chato v. Hon. Natividad[4] that:

Moreover, under the law, any employee who questions the validity of his transfer should appeal to the Civil Service
Commission. Respondent judge should have dismissed the action below for failure of private respondent to exhaust
administrative remedies.

We reiterated the above rule in Rualo v. Pitargue,[5] to wit:

Being [Bureau of Internal Revenue] employees, Perez and Vasquez focused their objections on security of tenure. In
the case of Perez, respondents object to the specter of a transfer. In the case of Vasquez, respondents object to the
place of transfer. Under the law, any employee who questions the validity of his transfer should appeal to the Civil
Service Commission. The trial court should have dismissed the case as to Perez and Vasquez, who both failed to
exhaust administrative remedies x x x.

The law is basic and jurisprudence is clear but Judge Flores failed to apply them. Judge Flores committed a gross and
patent error which makes him liable for gross ignorance of the law notwithstanding his claim of good faith. Judge Flores
even mentioned in the Order dated November 21, 2008 the contention of the Office of the Solicitor General that the trial
court lacks jurisdiction over the case. Judge Flores’s gross and patent error produces an inference of bad faith on his part,
considering that the issue of jurisdiction was raised.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. SARAH P. AMPONG

Facts:

1. Sometime in 1994, the Civil Service Commission (CSC) instituted an administrative case against Respondent
Sarah P. Ampong, Court Interpreter III of RTC Sarangani, for Dishonesty, Grave Misconduct and Conduct Prejudicial
 to the Best Interest of the Service for having impersonate or taken 1991 the Civil Service Eligibility Exam for
Teachers on behalf on one Evelyn B. Decir.

2. Ampong admitted such allegation, hence, the CSC rendered a resolution dismissing her from service. Ampong
moved for a reconsideration and appealed to the CA but both were denied and her dismissal from service was
affirmed.

3. Notwithstanding the said decision, the Financial Management Office of the Office of the Court Administration
(OCA), which did not receive any official directive regarding Respondent’s dismissal, continued to release the
latter’s salaries.

4. But when Judge Infante, judge of the RTC where Respondent works informed OCA about such dismissal, the
latter filed a Memorandum that it started withholding the salaries of Ampong. Respondent prayed that the Court
revisit its ruling and reiterated that the OCA and not CSC has the jurisdiction over the matter.

5. OCA recommended for Ampong’s dismissal for her acts constituted dishonesty. OCA also avers that the CSC has
an inherent power to discipline employees.

ISSUE: Whether or not Respondent had been dismissed from her employment?

RULING: The Court held YES.

RATIO:

1. By intentionally practicing a deception, the act undeniably involves dishonesty.

2. The court defined dishonesty as “disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud. Respondent’s dishonest act as a
civil servant renders her unfit to be a judicial employee.

3. Moreover, pursuant to the “doctrine of immutability of judgment”, “a decision that has acquired finality becomes
immutable and unalterable, and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to
correct erroneous conclusions of fact and law”.

4. It must be stressed that every employee of the Judiciary should be an employee of integrity, uprightness and
honesty. Like any public servant, she must exhibit the highest sense of honesty and integrity not only in the
performance of her official duties but also in her private dealings to preserve the court’s good name and standing.

9. Melanio s. Salita v. Atty Salve

A.C. No. 8101

Febraury 4, 2015

Facts:

Complainant Melanio S. Salita (Salita) filed a complaint against respondent Atty. Reynaldo T. Salve (Atty. Salve) in
connection with the latter’salleged falsification of public documents. On November 15, 2006, Salita paid his loan in full as
evidenced by a Release of Real Estate Mortgage executed by Rodriguez before Notary Public Buenaventura Melendres,
which was later duly entered in the Register of Deeds of Davao Del Norte. Notwithstanding such full payment, Rodriguez,
on September 17, 2007, instituted an ejectment complaint against Salita in furtherance of his cause the pre-formed Deed
of Absolute Sale and the two (2) REM instruments signed by the latter. Upon checking the said documents, Salita
discovered that the Deed of Absolute Sale had already been notarized by Atty. Salve and his Community Tax Certificate
Numbers were allegedly falsified.

Salita noticed that one copy of the Deed of Sale was purportedly notarized on August 12, 2007, while another
was notarized a month later, or on September 12, 2007. Thus, Salita went on to conclude that because of the foregoing
events, it appeared as if he had sold the subject property to Rodriguez and executed the same before Atty. Salve.
Aggrieved, Salita filed a criminal case for falsification of public documents against Rodriguez and Atty. Salve. Salita
likewise filed the instant administrative case against Atty. Salve.

In his defense, Atty. Salve vehemently denied that he falsified the Deed of Absolute Sale. He averred that the said
document was regular on its face except the month of sale, i.e., August 12, 2007 instead of September 12, 2007, which is
a mere clerical error due to “sheer” inadvertence on the part of his secretary.

Atty. Salve claimed that the date stamp accidentally slid to August instead of September as it was also being used
by three (3) other office clerks and two (2) lawyers for other office documents. Atty. Salve further narrated that both
Salita and Rodriguez went to him and brought the PN and other loan documents executed by Salita himself.

He also clarified that the PN was notarized in their presence on December 12, 2002 and both got a copy right
after. Atty. Salve then inferred that it was Salita who erased the PN’s machine printed numbers using his own handwriting
and thereafter photocopied it to make it appear that the document was not among the notarial documents he submitted
to the Office of the Clerk of Court of Tagum Cityfor the year 2002.

Finally, Atty. Salve averred that the certified electronic copies of the PN in the Office of the Clerk of Court of
Tagum City and the ones in his law office are identical and the same, while Salita’s alleged falsified photocopy is totally
different.

Issue: Whether Atty. Salve should be held administratively liable?

Held:

Yes, Atty. Salve’s act of certifying under oath an irregular Deed of Absolute Sale without requiring the personal
appearance of the persons executing the same constitutes gross negligence in the performance of duty as a notary
public.

A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed the same are the very same
persons who executed and personally appeared before him to attest to the contents and the truth of what are stated
therein. These acts of the affiants cannot be delegated because what are stated therein are facts they have personal
knowledge of and are personally sworn to. Otherwise, their representative’s names should appear in the said documents
as the ones who executed the same.

To recount, records reveal that Rodriguez used, among others, the Deed of Absolute Sale notarized by Atty. Salve
to file an ejectment complaint against Salita. However, it must be remembered that Salita was merely made to sign such
document as collateral for his loan and that he had already fully paid the same, as evidenced by the notarized Release of
Real Estate Mortgage executed by Rodriguez herself. Considering the circumstances, it is simply unfathomable for Salita
to appear before Atty. Salve to have the said document notarized, as it will be detrimental to his own interests. Hence,
the Court finds that Atty. Salve notarized the pre-formed Deed of Absolute Sale without Salita’s presence before him.

The function of a notary public is, among others, to guard against any illegal or immoral arrangements. By
affixing his notarial seal on the instrument, he converted the Deed of Absolute Sale, from a private document into a
public document. In doing so, Atty. Salve,as borne from the records of this case, effectively proclaimed to the world that:
(a) all the parties therein personally appeared before him; (b) they are all personally known to him; (c) they were the
same persons who executed the instruments; (d) he inquired into the voluntariness of execution of the instrument; and
(e) they acknowledged personally before him that they voluntarily and freely executed the same.

.C. No. 5482, February 10, 2015

JIMMY ANUDON AND JUANITA ANUDON, Complainants,
v.
ATTY. ARTURO B. CEFRA

Whoever acts as Notary Public must ensure that the parties executing the document be present. Otherwise, their
participation with respect to the document cannot be acknowledged. Notarization of a document in the absence of the
parties is a breach of duty.

FACTS:

- Complainants and Jimmy’s brothers and sister co-own a 4,446-square-meter parcel of land located in Sison, Pangasinan.

- On August 12, 1998, Atty. Cefra notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over the land owned by Jimmy and his siblings. The
names of Johnny Anudon (Johnny), Alfonso Anudon (Alfonso), Benita Anudon-Esguerra (Benita), and complainants Jimmy
and Juanita appeared as vendors, while the name of Celino Paran, Jr. (Paran) appeared as the vendee.

- Jimmy and Juanita claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale was falsified. They alleged that they did not sign the Deed of
Absolute Sale. Moreover, they did not sign it before Atty. Cefra. This is contrary to Atty. Cefra’s acknowledgment over the
document.

- In addition to the forgery of their signatures, Jimmy and Juanita stated that it was physically impossible for their
brothers and sister, Johnny, Alfonso, and Benita, to sign the Deed of Absolute Sale. Johnny and Benita were in the United
States on the day the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed, while Alfonso was in Cavite.

- On August 6, 2001, Jimmy and Juanita initiated a disciplinary action by filing a Complaint to the SC questioning the
propriety of Atty. Cefra’s conduct as lawyer and notary public.

- The SC required Atty. Cefra to comment on the administrative complaint. Atty. Cefra filed multiple Motions for
Extension of Time. Despite the allowance for extension of time, Atty. Cefra did not comply with this court’s order to file a
Comment. Atty. Cefra’s continued refusal to file his Comment caused the court to order his arrest and commitment.

ISSUE/S:

1) Whether Atty. Cefra’s act in notarizing the Deed of Sale constitutes a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial
Practice

2) Whether Atty. Cefra is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility in ignoring the court’s order
directing him to comment on the complaint against him

RULING:
 - The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice reiterates that acknowledgments require the affiant to appear in person
before the notary public.

- The rules require the notary public to assess whether the person executing the document voluntarily affixes his
or her signature. Without physical presence, the notary public will not be able to properly execute his or her
duty under the law.

- Notarization is the act that ensures the public that the provisions in the document express the true agreement
between the parties. Transgressing the rules on notarial practice sacrifices the integrity of notarized documents.
It is the notary public who assures that the parties appearing in the document are the same parties who
executed it. This cannot be achieved if the parties are not physically present before the notary public
acknowledging the document.

- Atty. Cefra claims that Jimmy and Juanita wanted to sell their land. Even if this is true, Jimmy and Juanita, as
vendors, were not able to review the document given for notarization. The Deed of Absolute Sale was brought
to Atty. Cefra by Paran’s representatives, who merely informed Atty. Cefra that the vendors signed the
document. Atty. Cefra should have exercised vigilance and not just relied on the representations of the vendee.

Aside from Atty. Cefra’s violation of his duty as a notary public, Atty. Cefra is also guilty of violating Canon 1 of the
Code of Professional Responsibility. This canon requires “[a] lawyer [to] uphold the Constitution, obey the laws
of the land and promote respect for law and legal processes.” He contumaciously delayed compliance with the
court’s order to file a Comment. As early as September 19, 2001, this court already required Atty. Cefra to
comment on the Complaint lodged against him. Atty. Cefra did not comply with this order until he was arrested
by the National Bureau of Investigation.

- Atty. Cefra only filed his Comment on January 15, 2008, more than seven years after this court’s order. Atty.
Cefra’s actions show utter disrespect for legal processes.

WHEREFORE, this court finds respondent Atty. Arturo B. Cefra GUILTY of notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale
dated August 12, 1998 in the absence of the affiants, as well as failure to comply with an order from this court.
Accordingly, this court SUSPENDS him from the practice of law for two (2) years, REVOKES his incumbent notarial
commission, if any, and PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES him from being commissioned as a notary public. Respondent
is also STERNLY WARNED that more severe penalties will be imposed for any further breach of the Canons in the
Code of Professional Responsibility.