G.R. No. A.M. No. 3048; June 3, 1991
JOSE C. MACIAS, ET AL., complainants, vs. MANUEL EB PACANA, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

Complainants, led by Jose C. Macias, filed administrative charges against several judges, lawyers, and private parties. The charges against Judges Severo Malvar, Eulalio Rosete, and former Justice Federico Alfonso were dismissed as moot due to their retirement, death, and resignation. The Supreme Court referred the case against Judge Alejandro B. Pallugna and several lawyers to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. After recalling the records from the IBP due to inaction, the Court referred the matter to its Chief Attorney. Complainants, in an amended pleading, subsequently dropped their charges against the respondent lawyers.
The specific allegations against Judge Pallugna included unauthorized practice of law, violation of judicial ethics, perjury, and unauthorized notarization of private documents. Complainants claimed his actions caused them to lose their inheritance. A prior administrative case (A.M. No. R-545-MTJ) involving similar charges of practicing law and absenteeism had already been dismissed by the Court for lack of sufficient evidence and failure to prosecute.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Alejandro B. Pallugna is administratively liable based on the charges filed against him.

RULING

The Court found Judge Pallugna liable only for unauthorized notarization and imposed a fine. The charges of unauthorized practice of law were deemed settled by the prior dismissal in A.M. No. R-545-MTJ. The Court noted that at the time of the alleged acts (around 1970), Judge Pallugna, as a Municipal Judge, was then authorized by law to engage in private practice. The acquisition of property and judicial inquiries cited by complainants occurred after relevant proceedings had terminated, with no showing of impropriety. The allegation of perjury, based on allegedly inconsistent comments filed with the Tanodbayan and the Court, was unsupported, as the statements were reconcilable given his authorized practice at the time.
However, the Court found clear evidence that Judge Pallugna notarized three private documents: a Deed of Absolute Sale (1977), a Memorandum of Agreement (1974), and an Extrajudicial Settlement (1974). This act constituted unauthorized notarization. Municipal Judges are prohibited from engaging in notarial work except as notaries public ex-officio, which is limited to documents connected with their official functions. This prohibition was explicitly affirmed by the Court in a 1972 decision involving Judge Pallugna himself, which upheld the cancellation of his notarial commission. His subsequent notarization of private documents was a direct disregard of that ruling. Accordingly, the Court fined him Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a stern warning. The complaint against the respondent lawyers was dismissed, as it had been withdrawn by the complainants.