NENITA DE VERA SUROZA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE REYNALDO P HONRADO OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, PASIG BRANCH 25 AND EVAN­GELINE S. YUIPCO, DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT, RESPO…

Suroza versus Honrado

The Case

This is an administrative case filed by Nenita de Vera Suroza against Judge Reynaldo P. Honrado of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch 25, and against Evangeline S. Yuipco, the deputy clerk of court. Nenita charged the judge with having admitted to probate a will that on its face was void, because it was written in English, a language not known to the illiterate testatrix, and which was probably forged because the testatrix and the attesting witnesses never appeared before the notary. The case matters because it fixes the line between a mere error of judgment, which is not disciplinable, and inexcusable negligence or inefficiency in the performance of judicial duty, which is.

Procedural History

Marina Paje filed a petition for the probate of the alleged will of Marcelina Salvador Suroza with the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch 25. The case was assigned to Judge Honrado. Because there was no opposition, he commissioned his deputy clerk of court, Evangeline Yuipco, to hear the evidence. He then appointed Marina as administratrix, authorized withdrawals from the decedent's bank accounts, ordered the ejectment of the occupants of the decedent's house, and in an order dated April 23, 1975, probated the will. Nenita's various motions and her counter-petition for letters of administration were denied, and the testamentary proceeding was eventually closed.

Nenita did not appeal from the decree of probate. Instead she filed a separate case to annul the probate proceedings, which was also assigned to Judge Honrado and which he dismissed. She then filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals, praying that the will, the decree of probate, and all the proceedings be declared void. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition because her remedy was an appeal, and her failure to appeal did not entitle her to the special civil action of certiorari. The administrative complaint against Judge Honrado was filed in the Supreme Court, referred to a Justice of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation, and decided by the Supreme Court as an original administrative matter.

Facts

Mauro Suroza, a soldier, married Marcelina Salvador in 1923. They were childless. They reared a boy named Agapito, who used the surname Suroza and who considered them his parents. Agapito married Nenita de Vera in 1945, and they had a daughter named Lilia. Agapito became a soldier, was disabled, and was declared incompetent in 1953, with Nenita appointed as his guardian. Mauro died in 1942. Marcelina, as a veteran's widow, became a pensioner of the Federal Government, and on her death she had accumulated cash in two banks.

A child named Marilyn Sy was entrusted, a few days after birth, to Arsenia de la Cruz and later delivered to Marcelina, who brought her up as a supposed daughter of Agapito and as her granddaughter. Marilyn used the surname Suroza but was not legally adopted by Agapito. Marcelina supposedly executed a notarial will in Manila on July 23, 1973, when she was 73 years old. The will was in English and was thumbmarked by her, although she was illiterate. In that will she bequeathed all her estate to her supposed granddaughter Marilyn. Marcelina died on November 15, 1974.

Marina Paje, alleged to be Marcelina's laundry woman and the executrix in the will, filed the petition for probate in January 1975. No opposition was filed. Judge Honrado commissioned his deputy clerk of court to hear the evidence, and the transcripts of the stenographic notes taken at that hearing are not in the record. The judge then issued the orders appointing Marina as administratrix, allowing her to withdraw ten thousand pesos from the savings accounts, and ejecting the occupants of the testatrix's house, among them Nenita. Only then did Nenita learn of the proceeding. She filed a motion to set aside the ejectment order, then an omnibus petition to set aside the proceedings, then an opposition to the probate with a counter-petition for administration, attaching affidavits of the housemaid and of a niece of the decedent. In spite of being apprised that persons other than Marilyn were claiming the estate, Judge Honrado probated the will on April 23, 1975. The notary who notarized the will later swore that the testatrix and the three attesting witnesses never appeared before him, and that he notarized it only to accommodate a brother lawyer.

Issues

• Whether or not disciplinary action should be taken against Judge Honrado for having admitted to probate a will void on its face because it was written in a language not known to the illiterate testatrix.
• Whether or not the judge's acts constituted serious misconduct, which requires malice or wrongful intent, or mere inefficiency, which implies negligence, incompetence, ignorance, and carelessness.
• Whether or not the administrative case against the deputy clerk of court may still proceed.

Applicable Provisions

Article 804 of the Civil Code provides:

Every will must be executed in a language or dialect known to the testator.

This is the mandatory provision the Court applies, and it is the ground on which the will is void on its face.

Section 67 of the Judiciary Law provides:

Administrative action may be taken against a judge of the court of first instance for serious misconduct or inefficiency.

This is the provision that authorizes the disciplinary action taken against the respondent judge.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that disciplinary action should be taken. On perusing the will and noting that it was written in English and was thumbmarked by an obviously illiterate testatrix, the judge could have readily perceived that the will is void. The opening paragraph stated that English was a language understood and known to the testatrix, but the concluding paragraph stated that the will was read to her and translated into the Filipino language. That could only mean that the will was written in a language not known to the illiterate testatrix, and therefore it is void under the mandatory provision of Article 804 of the Civil Code. The Court cited its earlier ruling that a will written in English, which was not known to the Igorot testator, is void and was disallowed. The Court also noted the hasty preparation of the will, shown in the attestation clause and notarial acknowledgment where the testatrix is repeatedly referred to as the testator instead of testatrix.

On the second issue, the Court distinguished the two grounds. Misconduct implies malice or a wrongful intent, not a mere error of judgment, and for serious misconduct to exist there must be reliable evidence showing that the judicial acts complained of were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. Inefficiency implies negligence, incompetence, ignorance, and carelessness, and a judge would be inexcusably negligent if he failed to observe in the performance of his duties that diligence, prudence, and circumspection which the law requires in the rendition of any public service. The Court found that had the judge been careful and observant, he could have noted not only the anomaly as to the language of the will but also that there was something wrong in instituting the supposed granddaughter as sole heiress and giving nothing at all to her supposed father who was still alive. After the hearing conducted by the deputy clerk of court, he could have noticed that the notary was not presented as a witness. In spite of the absence of an opposition, he should have personally conducted the hearing on the probate of the will so that he could have ascertained whether the will was validly executed. Under the circumstances, the Court found his negligence and dereliction of duty to be inexcusable.

On the third issue, the Court held that the case against the deputy clerk of court had become moot and academic because she was no longer employed in the judiciary, having been assistant city fiscal of Surigao City since September 1, 1980, and she is beyond the Court's disciplinary jurisdiction.

Doctrine

A judge may be held administratively liable for inefficiency, which implies negligence, incompetence, ignorance, and carelessness, where he fails to observe in the performance of his duties the diligence, prudence, and circumspection which the law requires. Serious misconduct, on the other hand, implies malice or a wrongful intent, not a mere error of judgment, and requires reliable evidence that the judicial acts were corrupt or inspired by an intention to violate the law, or were in persistent disregard of well-known legal rules. A will written in a language not known to the testator is void under Article 804 of the Civil Code, and a judge who admits such a will to probate despite its patent defect is inexcusably negligent. Even in the absence of an opposition, a judge should personally conduct the hearing on the probate of a will so that he can ascertain whether it was validly executed.

Disposition

The Court imposed on Judge Honrado, for inefficiency in handling the testate case, a fine equivalent to his salary for one month, and dismissed the case against the deputy clerk of court as moot and academic.

Remember This

Memorize the line that misconduct implies malice or wrongful intent, not a mere error of judgment, while inefficiency implies negligence, incompetence, ignorance, and carelessness. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between disciplinable inefficiency and non-disciplinable error of judgment, and to test Article 804 of the Civil Code on the language of wills.