AM 301; (July 1975) (Digest)
A.M. No. 301-MJ. July 25, 1975. PABLO FETALINO, complainant, vs. MUNICIPAL JUDGE CESAR L. MACALISANG, of San Agustin, Romblon, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Pablo Fetalino charged respondent Municipal Judge Cesar L. Macalisang with several administrative offenses. The first charge alleged malicious delay in deciding a forcible entry case (Civil Case No. 197) filed in March 1961. The second charge accused the judge of falsifying his daily time records from July 1964 to July 1970 by certifying under oath that no case had been pending decision for over 90 days. A third complaint alleged violation of the Notarial Law for notarizing a deed of sale in the absence of the vendor and infidelity in the custody of public documents for allegedly losing the records of the forcible entry case.
The Investigating Judge, after a thorough investigation, found the first two charges and the infidelity charge to be without merit. The record of Civil Case No. 197 was produced and showed that a decision was rendered on September 25, 1961, well within the reglementary period, and the case was included in the monthly report of disposed cases. Thus, there was no undue delay and no basis for the falsification charge regarding the daily time records. The case records were not lost.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Municipal Judge Cesar L. Macalisang is administratively liable for the charges of (1) malicious delay, (2) falsification of public document, (3) infidelity in the custody of documents, and (4) violation of the Notarial Law.
RULING
The Court dismissed the charges for malicious delay, falsification, and infidelity in the custody of documents but found the respondent liable for violation of the Notarial Law. The legal logic is grounded on the distinct nature of the proven infraction. For the first three charges, the factual findings of the Investigating Judge, which were supported by the evidence, absolved the respondent. The decision in the forcible entry case was rendered promptly in 1961, negating any delay or false certification in subsequent years. The case records were extant, disproving the allegation of loss. These charges were therefore dismissed for lack of factual basis.
However, regarding the Notarial Law violation, the Court held that the respondent’s actions, even if done in good faith, constituted a lack of due diligence. The respondent notarized a deed of sale without the personal appearance of the vendor, relying instead on representations from the vendee and a grandson. The Court emphasized the profound faith and credit accorded to notarized documents, making it imperative for notaries public to exercise the highest degree of care and fidelity. By not ensuring the vendor’s personal appearance and acknowledgment, the respondent failed to strictly comply with the solemn duties of a notary public. This lapse, while not malicious, warranted administrative sanction to underscore the importance of meticulous adherence to notarial formalities. Consequently, the respondent was severely reprimanded for this infraction.