A.M. No. RTJ-93-947 November 28, 1994
Dominga P. Masangcay, complainant, vs. Judge Carlos T. Aggabao, et al., respondents.
FACTS
Complainant Dominga P. Masangcay, a court employee, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Carlos T. Aggabao and several court personnel of the Regional Trial Court of Cabarroguis, Quirino. The charges included gambling during office hours, improper solicitation, receiving gifts from litigants, discourtesy, dishonesty for misusing court property, disgraceful conduct, nepotism, and unauthorized notarial practices. Specific allegations claimed Judge Aggabao played cards (“Tong-It”) with staff in courtrooms, socialized with lawyers having pending cases, and used court-issued property at home. Atty. Edwin O. Betguen, the Clerk of Court, was accused of notarizing documents without charging the required legal fees.
The respondents jointly denied all accusations. They asserted that gambling was strictly prohibited in the Hall of Justice, social gatherings were merely for special occasions with a respected former governor, and the notarization of documents was done for free as a service due to a lack of notaries public in the area. They argued the complaint was malicious and baseless, with some affidavits supporting the complainant being recanted or coming from individuals with grudges.
ISSUE
Whether the respondents are administratively liable for the alleged misconduct and violations of court rules and ethical standards.
RULING
The Supreme Court found partial merit in the complaint. Regarding Judge Aggabao, while the evidence for most serious charges like gambling was deemed insufficient, his act of allowing his service vehicle to be refueled by a private company upon his request constituted impropriety. This act violated Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandate judges to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. He was admonished to be more discreet.
Atty. Edwin O. Betguen was found guilty of neglect of duty. By notarizing documents for free in his capacity as an ex officio notary public, he deprived the government of the fees prescribed by law under Section 252 of the Revised Administrative Code. His actions, though perhaps intended charitably, constituted malfeasance and conduct prejudicial to the service. He was reprimanded. The complaint against Atty. Betguen regarding fee collection for property bond withdrawals was dismissed for lack of evidence. The charges against the other respondents (Wee, Magat, and Totto) were dismissed for lack of substantial evidence. An investigation was ordered concerning respondent Elsa V. Manuel on the specific charge of collecting unauthorized fees.