AM MTJ 00 1318; (November, 2004) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-00-1318. November 23, 2004. NELIA A. ZIGA, complainant, vs. JUDGE RAMON A. AREJOLA, MTC-Daet, Camarines Norte, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Nelia A. Ziga, a cousin and co-heir of respondent Judge Ramon A. Arejola (then a lawyer), filed an administrative complaint for neglect of duty. The complaint stemmed from Land Registration Case No. RTC’95-142, where respondent acted as counsel for all heirs of Fabiana Arejola, including complainant. The trial court’s decision confirmed the heirs’ title but misspelled complainant’s name as “LILIA.” Respondent subsequently used this erroneous name in a Deed of Absolute Sale for the property sold to the City of Naga. Complainant alleged that respondent, despite being notified by the City Attorney to correct the mistake, failed to do so, forcing her to file her own successful motion for correction. She contended this constituted a breach of his duty to protect his client’s interest.
Respondent denied the existence of an attorney-client relationship, claiming he filed the land registration case on his own behalf and as a co-heir, not as complainant’s counsel. He argued the misspelling was inconsequential, as the decision correctly identified the heirs of Expectacion A. Ziga, whom complainant represented. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initially recommended referring the case to the Bar Confidant, as the acts occurred before respondent’s judgeship. The Court, however, directed the OCA to investigate, noting that pre-appointment acts reflecting on judicial fitness fall under its jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Ramon A. Arejola is administratively liable for neglect of duty in connection with the misspelling of complainant’s name in the land registration case documents.
RULING
The Court found respondent administratively liable for simple negligence. The legal logic centers on the established attorney-client relationship and the corresponding duty of care. Evidence, including respondent’s own “Notice of Attorney’s Lien” filed in the land registration case, conclusively proved he represented all heirs, including complainant. As counsel, he was duty-bound to exercise reasonable diligence in safeguarding his client’s interests. His failure to seek the correction of a clear clerical error in the court decision—a mistake that could potentially hinder complainant’s ability to claim her share of the proceeds—constituted a lapse in this duty, notwithstanding his claim that the error was minor.
The act, committed prior to his appointment to the judiciary, is still subject to administrative sanction as it reflects on his fitness for judicial office. However, the Court considered the absence of malicious intent and the fact that the error was eventually corrected. Thus, the negligence was classified as simple, not gross. Accordingly, respondent was FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.