GIDEON R.  EVALLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. MUNICIPAL JUDGE ANTONIO B. MAGO OF MERCEDES, CAMARINES NORTE, RESPONDENT.

In a complaint dated August
27, 1973 Gideon R. Evalla charged Municipal Judge Antonio B. Mago of Mercedes, Cama­rines
Norte with certain irregularities, to wit:

(a) In 1969,
preparing the statement of the prose­cution witnesses, Gerardo Villanueva and Basilio Bata­lero, in Criminal
Case No. 1184, a grave coercion case filed against Clara R. Evalla,
complainant’s wife.  Judge Mago prepared the statements allegedly at the instance of
Jose Pascual, the judge’s ninong.

(b) In 1972,
acquitting Eduardo Cabusas and Felipe Badinas in Criminal Case No. 1367, a case of malicious
mischief filed by Pura Evalla,
the daughter of the herein complainant.

(c) On August 21, 1973, Judge Mago allegedly “flung away” the letter of the
complainant, addressed to the Chief Executive, wherein he denounced Edmundo Pascual for not paying
for complainant’s coconut land and trees.

(d) On August 22,
1973, Judge Mago allegedly re­fused to furnish the
complainant with copies of the trans­cript to be used in the hearing of
Criminal Case No. 1578 filed by Eduardo Cabusas and Teodora B. Sena against Ruben Alarcon.

After Judge Mago had submitted his
answer to the charges, this Court, upon the recommendation of the Judicial
Consultant, dismissed for lack of merit charges (a), (c) and (d) (See Resolu­tion
dated June 25, 1975).

Two additional charges were filed by Evalla
against Judge Mago: 
demanding P120 from the complainant for the purchase of two lawbooks and irregular ratification of a special power of
attor­ney.

After Judge Mago had answered those
charges, the same, together with the charge of having dismissed Criminal Case
No. 1367, were referred to the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance
of Camarines Norte for investigation, report and
recommendation.  The charges were
investigated by Judge Domingo Medina Angeles.

Dismissal of malicious mischief case.  – The investigator found that Judge Mago acquitted Badinas and Cabusas after trial and after conducting an ocular
inspection and that he rendered a decision based on the law and the facts
established during the trial.  Herein
complainant Gideon Evalla did not testify in that
case.  His wife was the offended party
therein.

Judge Angeles concluded that the verdict of acquittal was
correctly rendered by Judge Mago who decided the case
on the merits and who acquitted Badinas and Cabusas because their guilt was not established beyond
reasonable doubt.

Improper exaction.  – Judge Angeles also found that the charge of
having demanded P120 for the purchase of two lawbooks
was not proven by Evalla.  He did not file any bribery charge against
Judge Mago. 
There is no evidence that Evalla delivered P120 to Judge Mago.

However, it is apparent that there was an improper moti­vation on
respondent’s part in writing on a page of complainant’s notebook the titles of
two lawbooks and their prices.  In that res­pect his behavior was not above
reproach.

Irregular ratification of special power of
attorney.  – The evidence
shows that Restituto Caro
signed a special power of attorney in favor of Felipe Eborde,
a barrio captain, empowering him
(Eborde) to receive from the district highway engineer at Daet
the compensation for the construction of the Masalongsalong
bridge.

Judge Mago ratified the said document
in Caro’s absence on April 12, 1975.  That date is blurred.  It was superimposed on a prior date.  The document was prepared by a clerk in Judge
Mago’s office at Eborde’s
instance.  Caro
testified that he had no complaint against Judge Mago.

On the strength of that special power of attorney, Eborde allegedly collected from the municipal treasurer of
Mercedes the sum of P3,000 as payment for the
construction of the bridge.  It appears
that Caro was the ostensible contractor and Eborde was the one who actually supervised the
construction.  Eborde
supposedly paid Caro a certain amount for consenting
to act as Eborde’s dummy.  Apparently, the law prohibits barrio captains
from entering into any contract with the government for any construction
project.

The investigator recommends that Judge Mago
be exonerated of the charge.  The
Judicial Consultant recommends that respondent Judge be suspended for fifteen
days.

The act of a notary in administering an oath in affiant’s
absence, while not amounting to gross misconduct, is censurable (National
Bureau of Investigation vs. Morada, 112 Phil. 717; Viuda de Veloso vs. Madarang, 61 Phil. 773; Ramirez vs. Ner,
Adm. Case No. 500, September 27, 1967, 21 SCRA 207).

In the case of a municipal judge, a higher degree of ethical
standard should be observed.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge is exonerated of the charge of
having improperly acquitted the defendants in the malicious mischief case, it
not appearing that his decision was unjust (In re Climaco,
Adm. Case No. 134-J, January 21, 1974, 55 SCRA 107).

In connection with the charge of illegal exaction, respondent
Judge is admonished to avoid improper or unbecoming conduct that will cast a
doubt on his integrity.

As to the last charge, the respondent is suspended for a period
of fifteen days for having irregularly ratified the special power of attorney
executed by Restituto Caro.  The commission of another irregularity on his
part will be treated with more severity. 
Let a copy of this decision be attached to his personal record.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo, Antonio,
and Concepcion,
Jr., JJ., concur.