G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-20-2576. January 29, 2020.
SAMSON B. SINDON, COMPLAINANT, VS. PRESIDING JUDGE RAPHIEL F. ALZATE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 1, BANGUED, ABRA, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Complainant Samson Sindon charged respondent Judge Raphiel F. Alzate, Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 1, Bangued, Abra, and Atty. Janice Siganay Querrer, Clerk of Court of the same court, with violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, Section 5 of RA 6713, and Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. The complaint alleged that on September 6, 2017, Sindon’s counsel requested a copy of Judge Alzate’s order granting a notarial commission to his wife, Atty. Ma. Saniata Liwliwa Gonzales-Alzate. Atty. Querrer denied the request and suppressed the record. It was further alleged that Judge Alzate and Atty. Querrer conspired to give unwarranted benefit to Atty. Gonzales-Alzate, violated RA 6713 by failing to act promptly on the request within 15 days, and that Judge Alzate violated Rule 137 by not recusing himself from a proceeding involving his wife.
Judge Alzate countered that the request was dubious, as it bore the name “Samson Vista” and lacked a stated purpose, and that the complaint was harassment instigated by Mayor Jendricks Luna, who had a separate administrative case against him. He asserted that his wife’s notarial commission was granted after compliance with requirements and that no rule prohibits granting a commission to a spouse. Atty. Querrer explained that she informed Judge Alzate of the request, and upon his instruction, she mailed the order to the requesting law office on September 11, 2017, five days after the request. Sindon later filed a motion to withdraw the complaint, claiming he was coaxed into signing it.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that the request was acted upon within the 15-day period, and no conspiracy was proven. However, it found Judge Alzate liable for violating Section 1, Rule 137 by acting on his wife’s petition for notarial commission. The OCA recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter, that Judge Alzate be fined P11,000, and that charges against Atty. Querrer be dismissed.

ISSUE

1. Whether Sindon’s motion to withdraw the complaint deprives the Court of jurisdiction.
2. Whether Judge Alzate and Atty. Querrer are administratively liable for inaction on the letter-request and for allegedly giving unwarranted benefit to a third party.
3. Whether Judge Alzate is liable for hearing and granting his wife’s petition for notarial commission.

RULING

1. Sindon’s motion to withdraw does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction. In administrative proceedings, the complainant is a mere witness, and the Court’s constitutional mandate to supervise judiciary officials cannot be frustrated by private arrangements. The desistance does not warrant dismissal, as the issue is whether the respondent breached judicial norms.
2. Judge Alzate and Atty. Querrer cannot be held liable for inaction on the letter-request or conspiracy. The OCA correctly found that the request was acted upon within five days, complying with Section 5(a) of RA 6713. Atty. Querrer had no discretion to grant or deny the notarial commission, and no evidence showed conspiracy or undue influence by Judge Alzate. Her actions were part of her duties as clerk of court.
3. Judge Alzate is liable for violating Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court. The rule disqualifies a judge from sitting in any case where his wife is pecuniarily interested or related to a party within the sixth degree of affinity. By hearing and granting his wife’s petition for notarial commission, Judge Alzate violated this mandatory disqualification rule. The Court adopted the OCA’s recommendation, finding Judge Alzate guilty and imposing a fine of P11,000, with a stern warning against repetition. The charges against Atty. Querrer were dismissed for lack of merit.