A.M. No. RTJ-99-1520; November 20, 2000
REIMBERT C. VILLAREAL, complainant, vs. JUDGE ALEJANDRO R. DIONGZON, RTC Branch 11, Calubian, Leyte, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Reimbert C. Villareal filed an administrative complaint against Judge Alejandro R. Diongzon, then the presiding judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Villaba-Tabango, Leyte. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s notarization of a “Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale” on October 10, 1988, involving complainant’s parcels of land and Felix Sy, represented by Rosita Sy. Complainant alleged that Judge Diongzon improperly allowed Rosita Sy to sign for Felix Sy and, more seriously, that the judge had effectively converted a previous real estate mortgage document into this deed of sale, a change that later prejudiced complainant when he was charged with qualified theft for harvesting coconuts from the land.
Judge Diongzon, in his comment, denied the charges. He asserted that the parties themselves provided the terms of the deed, which was prepared by his clerk of court, and that he notarized it upon complainant’s own urging. He argued the complaint was barred by laches, filed eleven years after the fact, and was likely motivated by his finding of probable cause against complainant in the related criminal case for qualified theft.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Alejandro R. Diongzon should be held administratively liable for notarizing the Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale in 1988.

RULING

Yes, but not for the dishonesty alleged by the complainant. The Supreme Court dismissed the charge of dishonesty, finding no evidence that Judge Diongzon fraudulently altered documents or misrepresented the nature of the transaction. The Court accepted his explanation that he acted in good faith based on his understanding of his powers at the time.
However, the Court found Judge Diongzon liable for unlawful notarization. At the time of the act in 1988, municipal judges were already prohibited from acting as notaries public ex officio for private documents, pursuant to the Court’s ruling in Evalla v. Mago (1977). This prohibition is grounded on the principle that such notarization constitutes the unauthorized practice of law and creates potential conflicts of interest, undermining judicial integrity. The Court noted that while respondent may have been initially unaware of the prohibition, his subsequent discovery of the correct rule in 1990 did not absolve him of the violation that had already occurred. His immediate cessation of notarial practice and surrender of his notarial books upon learning the rule were considered mitigating factors but did not erase the infraction.
Consequently, the Supreme Court imposed a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) on Judge Diongzon for unlawful notarization, with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. The penalty emphasizes the Court’s strict adherence to rules prohibiting judges from engaging in notarial acts for private parties, which is essential to preserving public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality and propriety.