A.M. No. 1765-CFI October 17, 1980
ARNALDO R. BORRE, complainant, vs. CFI JUDGE FELIX L. MOYA of Tagum, Davao del Norte and CITY JUDGE GUMERSINDO ARCILLA, Branch III, Davao City, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Arnaldo R. Borre charged CFI Judge Felix L. Moya with grave abuse of discretion and City Judge Gumersindo Arcilla with serious misconduct. The charges stemmed from a civil case filed by Arnaldo’s brother, Calvin, seeking to annul a deed of sale over a parcel of land. On the very day the complaint was filed, September 8, 1977, Executive Judge Moya, without any prior raffle of the case to a specific branch, issued an order that included a restraining order against Arnaldo. Judge Moya later presided over the case after it was allegedly assigned to his sala the following day. Arnaldo charged that this act violated Supreme Court Circular No. 7, which prohibits an Executive Judge from acting on any incidental matter in a case not yet assigned by raffle.
Separately, Arnaldo charged Judge Arcilla, his second cousin, with engaging in private business and improperly acting as a notary public ex officio. Specifically, Judge Arcilla notarized the deed of sale executed in favor of Calvin, despite allegedly knowing of a prior sale to Arnaldo, and collected professional and notarial fees for this private transaction.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) Whether Judge Moya violated Supreme Court Circular No. 7 by issuing a restraining order in a case not yet raffled to a branch; and (2) Whether Judge Arcilla committed misconduct by engaging in private notarial work and business.

RULING

The Court found Judge Moya administratively liable. His defense that he merely preserved the status quo and did not issue a restraining order was contradicted by the clear text of his own order. The Court emphasized that Circular No. 7 explicitly strips an Executive Judge of authority to act on any incidental matter in an unraffled case. The proper procedure for urgent matters is to hold a special raffle. Judge Moya’s claim of oversight by his clerk and his need to prevent irreparable injury were unacceptable. The alleged injury could have been prevented by the simple registration of a notice of lis pendens. His failure to comply with the circular’s raffle requirements, including stenographic recording and initialing the case assignment, demonstrated negligence. Consequently, Judge Moya was censured and fined an amount equivalent to ten days’ salary.
Regarding Judge Arcilla, the Court held that a city judge has no statutory authority to act as a notary public ex officio, unlike municipal judges. An ex officio notary should only notarize documents connected with official duties and must not compete with private practitioners. Judge Arcilla’s act of notarizing private documents for a fee was improper. Furthermore, engaging in private business without the required Supreme Court permission violated civil service rules. However, since Judge Arcilla had died before the promulgation of this decision, the case against him was dismissed for being moot.