DANIEL B. HERNANDEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. JOSE C. RAZO, RESPONDENT.

Hernandez versus Razo

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Daniel B. Hernandez against Jose C. Razo, then a judge of the Court of First Instance of Albay and Legaspi City, charging him with irregularities and corrupt acts allegedly committed both as a practicing lawyer and as municipal judge of Donsol, Sorsogon. The complainant asked the Court to discipline a member of the Bench for fraud, improper notarization, conflict of interest, obstruction of a writ of execution, refusal to accept a criminal complaint, and taking his oath of office while an administrative case hung over him. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a compact lesson on the quantum of proof in administrative proceedings against judicial officers, on the lawful scope of a municipal judge's ex officio notarial powers, and on the settled rule that mere blood or affinity relationship does not disqualify a lawyer from appearing for a client.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed with the Department of Justice on June 22, 1971, and later amended on February 9, 1972. The Department indorsed it to the executive district judge of the Court of First Instance of Legaspi City, who informed the Department that he could no longer investigate it because the indorsement reached him only on July 26, 1971, two days after the respondent had already taken his oath as district judge. The case was then assigned for investigation to Justice Juan O. Reyes of the Court of Appeals, who conducted the hearing. It reached the Supreme Court as an original administrative case against a judge, decided by the Court en banc.

Facts

In civil case 1311 of the Court of First Instance of Sorsogon, Daniel Hernandez obtained a judgment against Emiliano Pacheco. When the judgment was not satisfied, the provincial sheriff sold at public auction two parcels of land belonging to Pacheco, and Hernandez bought them as the highest bidder. Hernandez later moved to cite Pacheco's tenants for contempt for refusing to vacate, and among those charged were Teobaldo Magdamit and his wife.

Hernandez and Magdamit then reached an amicable settlement: Hernandez agreed to sell the two parcels to Magdamit for 2,000 pesos. On November 28, 1966, the deed of sale was signed and notarized in the respondent's office, witnessed by Hernandez's own counsel, Atty. Rafael Rañeses, and one Eufrosiño Triñanez. The deed acknowledged receipt of the full 2,000 pesos. On December 2, 1966, Atty. Rañeses, with Hernandez's express conformity, moved to exclude Magdamit, his wife, and Aurelio Magdamit from the contempt charge, and the respondent appeared as counsel for the three.

Hernandez later claimed that the respondent handed him an envelope containing only 1,000 pesos. The respondent, however, produced Hernandez's own list of expenses showing that Hernandez had paid 1,000 pesos to Atty. Rañeses, a police certification that Hernandez had reported Rañeses as having taken his money, and the testimony of Rañeses himself that he counted Magdamit's money and took 1,000 pesos from it. The complainant also charged the respondent with competing as ex officio notary public, maneuvering deeds to defeat the writ of execution, refusing to accept an estafa complaint, and taking his oath as district judge knowing the administrative case was pending.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent defrauded the complainant of half of the purchase price of the two parcels of land.
• Whether or not the respondent improperly competed with other notaries public by notarizing the three deeds of sale.
• Whether or not the respondent was disqualified from appearing as counsel for distant relatives in the contempt proceeding and from notarizing a deed in their favor.
• Whether or not the respondent maneuvered the execution of the deeds of sale to impede the writ of execution in civil case 1311.
• Whether or not the respondent refused to accept the filing of a complaint for estafa in the municipal court of Donsol.
• Whether or not the respondent committed an irregularity in taking his oath of office as district judge while the administrative case was pending.

Applicable Provisions

The decision rests on the settled rule that municipal judges are authorized by law to act as notaries public ex officio, which the Court states in these terms:

Needless to say, municipal judges are authorized by law to act as notaries public ex-officio.

This authority is the legal foundation for rejecting the charge of unfair competition in notarization.

The complainant invoked article 22 of the Spanish Notarial Law, which the Court quotes in its footnote:

The provisions of article 22 of the Spanish Notarial Law (Ley del Notariado de 28 de Mayo de 1862), cited by the complainant, cannot be a legal basis, assuming their application to the case at bar, for the alleged disqualification of the respondent from notarizing exhibits "1" and "17", supra, because the said article prohibits a notary public from authenticating a contract only when it contains a provision in his favor, or when any of the parties in interest is a relative within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or second degree by affinity.

The Court holds that the respondent's relationship to Magdamit and Razo-Rey falls outside the prohibited range, and that the Spanish law is in any event no longer in force.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found that the respondent did not abscond with the complainant's money. The totality of the evidence showed that it was not the respondent but Atty. Rañeses who took the 1,000 pesos.

On the second issue, the Court found no unfair competition. Atty. Froilan Hernandez had never been appointed notary public for Sorsogon before September 13, 1971, and all three deeds were notarized before that date. The first deed was notarized at the complainant's own request because the only notary public in Donsol, Severino Hernandez, was a near relative of the complainant; the second because Severino was not then in Donsol; and the third because Severino was believed disqualified, the vendee being his sister-in-law. The respondent charged nothing beyond the 1.50 pesos paid into the Government treasury, and the two alleged competitors never came forward to complain. The Court added that unless the office is abused in a manner that denigrates the high responsibilities of the Bench, it would be unfair to discipline municipal judges simply because on rare occasions they authenticate contracts, particularly where there was only one notary public in the municipality.

On the third issue, the Court held that there is no law or canon of professional ethics disqualifying a lawyer from appearing as counsel for a person by reason simply of blood or affinity relationship. The respondent's relationship to Magdamit and Razo-Rey was in the sixth and seventh degree, respectively, and he was then duly authorized to practice law.

On the fourth issue, the Court found no convincing proof that the respondent was privy to any maneuver. Mere authentication of a document is not proof that the notary public knew the truth of the substantive matters described therein, or that he was fully informed of the motivations of the parties making the acknowledgment. Ownership of the land was already being litigated in a separate civil case, and the respondent was not impleaded there.

On the fifth issue, the Court found the charge bereft of merit. The estafa complaint was refused either in January or May 1968, when the respondent was no longer municipal judge of Donsol, having become City Judge of Legaspi City as of September 1, 1967.

On the sixth issue, the Court held that the charge could not prosper. The indorsement of the Department of Justice reached the executive district judge only on July 26, 1971, two days after the respondent had taken his oath, and the respondent asserted that he received a copy of the complaint only on September 9, 1971. The alleged attempts at amicable settlement were initiated not by the respondent but by former Congressman Rafael Aquino.

Doctrine

First, municipal judges are authorized by law to act as notaries public ex officio, and they may not be disciplined for authenticating contracts on rare occasions absent abuse that denigrates the high responsibilities of the Bench.

Second, mere authentication of a document by a notary public is not proof that he knew the truth of the substantive matters stated therein or the motivations of the parties.

Third, no law or canon of professional ethics disqualifies a lawyer from appearing as counsel for a person by reason simply of blood or affinity relationship.

Fourth, in administrative complaints against judicial officers, the charges must be established by convincing evidence; suspicion and speculation will not suffice.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent not guilty of all the charges and dismissed the complaint.

Remember This

Memorize the line that municipal judges are authorized by law to act as notaries public ex officio, and that mere authentication is not proof of knowledge of the document's contents. Examiners use this case in legal ethics and judicial ethics questions on notarial practice by judges, conflict of interest based on relationship, and the quantum of proof in administrative complaints against members of the Bench.