G.R. No. A.M. No. 524-MJ March 30, 1977
Gideon R. Evalla, complainant, vs. Municipal Judge Antonio B. Mago of Mercedes, Camarines Norte, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Gideon R. Evalla filed an administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Antonio B. Mago, alleging several irregularities. The Supreme Court initially dismissed some charges for lack of merit. The remaining charges, which were referred for investigation, involved three specific acts: first, the acquittal of the accused in a malicious mischief case filed by Evalla’s daughter; second, demanding P120 from Evalla for the purchase of lawbooks; and third, the irregular notarization of a special power of attorney. The investigation was conducted by Executive Judge Domingo Medina Angeles.
Judge Angeles found that the acquittal in the malicious mischief case was rendered after a proper trial and ocular inspection, based on the merits and the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding the alleged demand for money for lawbooks, the investigator found no conclusive proof that Evalla actually delivered any money to Judge Mago or that a bribery occurred. However, it was established that Judge Mago had written the titles and prices of two lawbooks in Evalla’s notebook, indicating an improper motivation. For the third charge, the evidence confirmed that Judge Mago notarized a special power of attorney executed by Restituto Caro in favor of Barrio Captain Felipe Eborde, but did so in the absence of the affiant, Caro, and with a blurred, superimposed date on the document.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Municipal Judge Antonio B. Mago should be held administratively liable for the charges of improper acquittal, illegal exaction, and irregular notarization.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled partially in favor of the complainant. Respondent Judge was exonerated from the charge concerning the acquittal in the malicious mischief case. The Court upheld the investigator’s finding that the decision was rendered judiciously after trial and was based on the evidence, with no showing of arbitrariness or injustice. This aligns with the principle that a judge’s decision, when made on the merits, is not a ground for administrative liability absent proof of bad faith or gross ignorance.
However, the Court found Judge Mago administratively liable for the other two charges. Concerning the lawbook incident, while no direct bribery was proven, the act of writing the book titles and prices in the complainant’s notebook constituted improper and unbecoming conduct, casting doubt on his integrity. He was sternly admonished for this. For the irregular notarization, the Court found him guilty of misconduct. A notary public, including a municipal judge acting as one, is required to ensure the affiant’s personal appearance to verify identity and voluntariness. Notarizing a document in the affiant’s absence is a censurable act that violates notarial norms and the higher ethical standards expected of judges. Consequently, the Court suspended Judge Mago for fifteen days for this irregularity, with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.