A.M. No. 884-CFI August 3, 1978
Bayani Vasquez, complainant, vs. Judge Severo Malvar, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Bayani Vasquez filed a verified complaint against Judge Severo Malvar of the Court of First Instance of Laguna, Branch VI, for serious misconduct. The complaint enumerated six counts, primarily concerning the judge’s actions in Special Proceedings No. 31-C, the intestate estate of Maria Pelaez. The charges included Judge Malvar’s active personal intervention in authorizing and facilitating, without a written court order, three withdrawals totaling ₱30,000 from the deceased’s bank account for funeral and vigil expenses. He personally went to the bank to give verbal instructions. Other counts alleged improper appointment of his clerk of court as special administrator despite contrary precedent and party petitions, pressuring parties into an extrajudicial partition while acknowledging some claimants were not legal heirs, and issuing orders for property distribution without notice to adversely affected parties.
After filing his comment, the complainant moved to withdraw his complaint, stating everything had been clarified. The Supreme Court, however, referred the matter to an Investigating Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Severo Malvar is guilty of serious misconduct in office based on the acts alleged in the complaint.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Malvar guilty of serious misconduct. The Court emphasized that while the withdrawals for burial expenses were ultimately justified and accounted for, the judge’s method constituted a grave abuse of authority. By personally going to the bank and issuing verbal instructions without a written order, he arrogated unto himself the functions of an administrator and violated procedural norms, creating an oppressive disregard for due process. This active personal intervention in ministerial matters was improper and unbecoming of a judge, who must maintain proper judicial perspective and avoid confusion in administrative roles.
Furthermore, the Court condemned his actions regarding the extrajudicial partition. Knowing some parties were not related to the decedent, his duty was to protect the interests of the State, particularly concerning inheritance taxes and the possibility of the State being an intestate heir. He failed in this duty by not notifying the Provincial Fiscal or Solicitor General, thereby risking the loss of government revenue and enabling an improper settlement. Considering his over 40 years of service and his proximity to retirement, the Court deemed the investigating justice’s recommended admonition too lenient. Judge Severo Malvar was found guilty of serious misconduct and ordered to pay a fine equivalent to one month’s salary. Copies of the resolution were ordered for his personal record and furnished to the Solicitor General for possible action to annul the extrajudicial partition.