G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-13-1837 September 24, 2014
CONRADO ABE LOPEZ, represented by ATTY. ROMUALDO JUBAY, Complainant, vs. JUDGE ROGELIO S. LUCMAYON, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1, Mandaue City, Cebu, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Conrado Abe Lopez, through counsel, charged respondent Judge Rogelio S. Lucmayon with Dishonesty, Corruption, and Malpractice concerning a family land dispute. The complainant alleged he inherited a portion of land from his adoptive father. He claimed that in October 2004, the respondent deceived him into signing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to process a land sale, which document contained a deceptively inserted “Waiver of Rights” that stripped him of ownership. The SPA was notarized by Atty. Arturo C. Mata allegedly without the complainant’s presence. The respondent also allegedly caused the execution of a “Supplemental Extrajudicial Settlement” that excluded the complainant and his adoptive mother as heirs. The respondent denied the allegations, stating the complainant initiated the sale and that his participation was limited to informing relatives the complainant was not a legal heir due to lack of legal adoption. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initially recommended dismissal, which the Court adopted. Upon the complainant’s motion for reconsideration, the OCA reevaluated and recommended holding the respondent liable for acts of impropriety, particularly for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct by serving as the complainant’s attorney-in-fact.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Rogelio S. Lucmayon is administratively liable for his actions related to the land dispute and his appointment as attorney-in-fact for the complainant.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found the respondent GUILTY of (1) violating Rule 5.06 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and (2) impropriety.
1. The respondent violated Rule 5.06 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits a judge from serving as an executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary, except for the immediate family. By accepting his appointment as the complainant’s attorney-in-fact, the respondent acted as a fiduciary for someone not within his immediate family (limited to spouse and relatives within the second degree of consanguinity). This risked conflict with his judicial duties and distracted him from official functions.
2. The respondent is guilty of impropriety. Judges must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality. The respondent’s actions in the private transaction failed to meet the exacting standard of morality required.
The Court imposed a total fine of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (₱30,000.00)—₱20,000.00 for violating Rule 5.06 and ₱10,000.00 for impropriety—with a STERN WARNING that repetition will be dealt with more severely.