G.R. No. MTJ-00-1318. November 23, 2004.
NELIA A. ZIGA, complainant, vs. JUDGE RAMON A. AREJOLA, MTC-Daet, Camarines Norte, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Nelia A. Ziga, a co-heir, filed an administrative complaint against then Atty. Ramon A. Arejola for allegedly disregarding his duty to protect his client’s interest. The complaint stemmed from Land Registration Case No. RTC’95-142, where respondent acted as counsel for the heirs of Fabiana Arejola, including complainant. After the trial court rendered a decision confirming title, complainant’s name was misspelled as “LILIA” in the decision. Complainant alleged that respondent failed to correct this error despite a request from the City Attorney of Naga City, and he used the erroneous name in a subsequent Deed of Absolute Sale for the property. This forced complainant to file her own motion for correction, which was granted.
Respondent Judge Arejola denied the existence of an attorney-client relationship, asserting he filed the land registration case on his own behalf as an applicant heir and for his co-heirs, not as complainant’s counsel. He argued the spelling was inconsequential, as the inclusion of the heirs of Expectacion A. Ziga was what mattered. Complainant rebutted this, citing a Notice of Attorney’s Lien filed by respondent and evidence of a common fund from all heirs for litigation expenses, which she contended proved representation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Ramon A. Arejola is administratively liable for neglect of duty in failing to correct a clerical error in a court decision concerning his client’s name.

RULING

The Court found respondent administratively liable for simple neglect of duty. The investigation established that an attorney-client relationship existed. Respondent filed the petition as “counsel for the applicants,” received a common fund from the heirs for expenses, and filed a Notice of Attorney’s Lien claiming fees—all indicative of a professional relationship. His failure to seek the correction of a manifest clerical error in the decision, especially after being formally notified by the City Attorney, constituted a breach of his duty to serve his client with competence and diligence.
The act complained of occurred prior to respondent’s appointment to the judiciary. However, charges against judges for pre-appointment acts are still within the Court’s administrative disciplinary power, as such acts may reflect on their fitness for judicial office. The Court emphasized that the duty of a lawyer, which continues upon becoming a judge, includes safeguarding a client’s interests. Respondent’s neglect, while not gross, demonstrated a lack of due care. Accordingly, he was fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a stern warning.