G.R. No. A.M. No. 528-MJ. September 12, 1977
Crispina Maturan Candia, complainant, vs. Municipal Judge Alonzo J. Tagabucba, respondent.

FACTS

The heirs of Marcelo Maturan owned a 12-hectare land mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank (PNB). After the mortgage was foreclosed, the heirs, including complainant Crispina Maturan Candia, sold 4.5 hectares to Martin Manisan, with respondent Judge Alonzo J. Tagabucba notarizing the deed. The proceeds were not used to redeem the mortgage, leading the PNB to foreclose the entire property, including Manisan’s portion. Manisan sought respondent’s legal advice about filing an estafa case against the heirs. Respondent, while serving as Municipal Judge of Mahayag, Zamboanga del Sur, allowed Manisan to engage his legal services. Subsequently, respondent also agreed to act as attorney-in-fact for the Maturan heirs to repurchase the property from the PNB, procuring funds from a third party, Mr. Chupuico, through a pacto de retro sale.
The investigation revealed that respondent was the beneficial vendee in the transaction with Chupuico, taking possession of the property. Furthermore, the complaint for estafa that Manisan contemplated filing would have fallen within the jurisdiction of respondent’s own court. Respondent admitted to these actions in his sworn statements, framing them as an attempt to help the heirs save their property.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Alonzo J. Tagabucba is administratively liable for conduct unbecoming a judicial officer.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable and is dismissed from service. The Supreme Court found that respondent violated fundamental judicial ethics by using his office to promote his personal interests. While judges were permitted to practice law at the time, it was grossly improper for respondent to act as counsel for a party (Manisan) in a matter that could become a case in his court and then also represent the adverse party (the Maturan heirs) in the same transactional controversy. This dual representation created an irreconcilable conflict of interest and demonstrated a terrible misconception of judicial propriety.
The Court rejected respondent’s defense that he merely intended to assist the heirs. His actions, including being the notary for the original sale, advising on potential litigation, representing both sides, and ultimately being the beneficial purchaser of the property in question, conclusively showed he acted in pursuit of personal gain. Such conduct betrays a lack of ethical principles and sense of propriety indispensable for maintaining public faith in the judiciary. His actions rendered him unfit for judicial office. Accordingly, respondent was dismissed with forfeiture of all leave and retirement privileges.