Sindon vs. Alzate

A judge is compulsorily disqualified from sitting in any case or proceeding involving his spouse, including a summary and non-adversarial petition for notarial commission, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court and Section 5, Canon III of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. The summary and non-adversarial nature of a proceeding does not remove it from the ambit of the compulsory disqualification rule.

Complainant Samson Sindon filed an administrative complaint against Presiding Judge Raphiel F. Alzate of RTC-Branch 1, Bangued, Abra, and Clerk of Court Atty. Janice Siganay Querrer of the same court. The complaint alleged violations of Section 3(e) of RA 3019, Section 5 of RA 6713, and Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, arising from Judge Alzate's grant of a notarial commission to his wife, Atty. Ma. Saniata Liwliwa Gonzales-Alzate, and the respondents' purported inaction on Sindon's request for a copy of the granting order. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice require the executive judge to conduct a summary hearing on petitions for notarial commission to determine sufficiency in form and substance, truth of allegations, and the applicant's understanding of the Notarial Rules.

On September 6, 2017, Samson Sindon, through his counsel Atty. Jean Phebie De Mesa of the Reynaldo Cortes Law Office, requested from the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) of RTC-Branch 1, Bangued, Abra a copy of the order granting a notarial commission to Atty. Ma. Saniata Liwliwa Gonzales-Alzate, the wife of Presiding Judge Raphiel F. Alzate. Atty. De Mesa, accompanied by Fremelinda Galinada, personally filed the letter-request with the OCC before Clerk of Court Atty. Janice Siganay Querrer. Atty. Querrer deemed it prudent to inform Judge Alzate of the request, as he was the Executive Judge. Judge Alzate, who was then at his other station in RTC, Cabugao, Ilocos Sur where he served as acting presiding judge, instructed Atty. Querrer to ask Atty. De Mesa for the purpose of the request. Atty. De Mesa merely said she was "napag-utusan" (following orders). Judge Alzate then told Atty. Querrer he wanted to see the request before releasing the order.

Judge Alzate characterized the letter-request as dubious because the name indicated as requesting party was "Samson Vista," not "Samson Sindon," there was no indicated address for the Reynaldo Cortes Law Office, and there was no stated purpose for the request. He also claimed the complaint was pure harassment, Sindon being an ally of Mayor Jendricks Luna of Lagayan, Abra, who was a complainant in another administrative case against him. Atty. Gonzales-Alzate corroborated this, averring that Sindon was merely forced by Mayor Luna to file the complaint, as Mayor Luna had a grudge against her for representing Leonard Donato, a known enemy accused of killing Sindon's wife.

Two days later, on September 8, 2017, Judge Alzate read the request and directed Atty. Querrer to send a copy of the order granting Atty. Gonzales-Alzate's notarial commission through mail to the Reynaldo Cortes Law Office. As instructed, Atty. Querrer mailed the order. The OCC received the letter-request on September 6, 2017, and mailed the requested order on September 11, 2017, or five days later. The order granting Atty. Gonzales-Alzate's petition for notarial commission, dated June 30, 2017, had been prepared by a stenographer of RTC-Branch 1 identified as "Maal." Judge Alzate had granted his wife's petition after she submitted and complied with the requirements, and he maintained there was nothing in the notarial rules prohibiting the grant of a notarial commission to the spouse of the Executive Judge.

On September 10, 2018, Sindon filed a motion to withdraw the complaint, claiming that no one explained to him the allegations therein and that he was merely coaxed into signing it under the impression that it would help the case he filed against the suspected killers of his wife. The OCA found that the request was promptly acted upon within the prescribed fifteen-day period, that no conspiracy was sufficiently proved, but that Judge Alzate was liable for acting on his wife's petition for notarial commission in violation of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court.

• Inaction on Request: Sindon alleged that Judge Alzate and Atty. Querrer failed to promptly act on his letter-request within the fifteen-day period prescribed under Section 5 of RA 6713 and that Atty. Querrer denied the request and suppressed the record.
• Conspiracy to Give Unwarranted Benefit: Sindon accused Judge Alzate and Atty. Querrer of conspiring to give unwarranted benefit to Atty. Gonzales-Alzate by granting her application for notarial commission, alleging that Atty. Querrer prepared the order and handed it to Judge Alzate for approval.
• Violation of Rule 137: Sindon charged Judge Alzate with violating Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court for not recusing himself from sitting on a case or proceeding involving his wife.

• Dubious Request: Judge Alzate argued that Sindon's letter-request was dubious because the name indicated therein was "Samson Vista," not "Samson Sindon," there was no indicated address for the Reynaldo Cortes Law Office, and there was no stated purpose for the request.
• Harassment Complaint: Judge Alzate maintained that the complaint was pure harassment, Sindon being an ally of Mayor Jendricks Luna, a complainant in another administrative case against him, and that Atty. De Mesa admitted she was following Mayor Luna's orders.
• No Prohibition on Granting Commission to Spouse: Judge Alzate argued that there was nothing in the notarial rules prohibiting the grant of a notarial commission to the spouse of the Executive Judge or any relative within any degree of consanguinity or affinity, and there was no reason to conceal the records, which were part of public records.
• Proper Performance of Duty: Atty. Querrer stated that she informed Judge Alzate of the request as a matter of prudence, followed his instructions regarding the request, and mailed the order as directed; she had no authority to grant or deny the petition for notarial commission.

• Effect of Withdrawal: Whether Sindon's motion to withdraw the complaint deprives the Court of jurisdiction over the administrative case.
• Inaction on Request: Whether Judge Alzate and Atty. Querrer can be held administratively liable for purported inaction on Sindon's letter-request.
• Conspiracy: Whether Judge Alzate and Atty. Querrer conspired to give unwarranted benefit to Atty. Gonzales-Alzate in violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019.
• Judicial Disqualification: Whether Judge Alzate is liable for hearing and granting his wife's petition for notarial commission in violation of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court.

• Effect of Withdrawal: No. A complainant's desistance does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction over an administrative case, the complainant being a mere witness and not an indispensable party in disciplinary proceedings.
• Inaction on Request: No. The request was acted upon within five days, well within the fifteen-working-day period under Section 5(a) of RA 6713.
• Conspiracy: No. Atty. Querrer had no discretion to grant or deny the notarial commission petition, and no evidence showed that Judge Alzate exerted influence or instructed her to ensure a favorable action on his wife's application.
• Judicial Disqualification: Yes. Judge Alzate violated Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court and Section 5, Canon III of the New Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to inhibit himself from acting on his wife's petition for notarial commission.

• Effect of Withdrawal: The main thrust of a disciplinary proceeding against a member of the bar or bench is to determine fitness to continue holding the privileges of being an officer of the court. In administrative proceedings, a complainant is a mere witness and not indispensable because no private interests are involved. The Court has a constitutional mandate to supervise the conduct and behavior of all officials and employees of the judiciary, which cannot be frustrated by any private arrangement of the parties. The issue is not whether the complainant has a cause of action against the respondent, but whether the respondent breached the norms and standards of the courts.

• Inaction on Request: The OCA correctly noted that contrary to Sindon's accusation, the request was actually sent by mail five days after it was received, complying with Section 5(a) of RA 6713, which requires public officials to respond to letters within fifteen working days from receipt. While Atty. De Mesa was not able to secure a copy on the same day, this did not necessarily mean inaction or concealment of the record on the part of the respondents.

• Conspiracy: Atty. Querrer was not clothed with any discretion to grant or deny the application for notarial commission. The fact alone that she was the clerk of court assigned to Judge Alzate's sala does not make her a co-conspirator on matters pending before him. No evidence showed that Judge Alzate exerted influence or instructed Atty. Querrer to ensure a favorable action on his wife's application. The fact that Atty. Querrer received documents submitted by Atty. Gonzales-Alzate in connection with her application was a regular performance of her duty as clerk of court.

• Judicial Disqualification: Section 1, Rule 137 prohibits a judge from sitting in any case in which his wife is interested or related to a party within the prohibited degrees. Section 5, Canon III of the New Code of Judicial Conduct similarly requires disqualification where a judge's spouse has an interest in the proceeding. The term "sit" in a case means to hold court or do any act of a judicial nature, including resolving motions and issuing orders. Under Section 4, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the judge must conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the petition is sufficient in form and substance, whether the allegations are true, and whether the applicant has read and understood the Notarial Rules. This required Judge Alzate to exercise discretion in passing upon his wife's compliance with the rules and qualifications. The summary and non-adversarial nature of the proceeding does not remove it from the ambit of the disqualification rule, as held in Villaluz vs. Judge Mijares, where a judge was found to have violated Rule 137 for failing to recuse herself from her grandson's petition for correction of entry despite its non-adversarial nature. Judges must not only be honest and impartial but must also appear to be so, ensuring their acts do not arouse suspicion in the minds of the public.

• Complainant as Mere Witness in Administrative Proceedings — In administrative proceedings against members of the bench and bar, the complainant is a mere witness and not an indispensable party. The Court retains jurisdiction notwithstanding the complainant's desistance, because the issue is whether the respondent breached judicial norms, not whether the complainant has a cause of action. The Court's constitutional mandate to supervise judiciary officials cannot be frustrated by private arrangements of the parties.

• Compulsory Disqualification of Judges Under Rule 137 — Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court prohibits a judge from sitting in any case in which his wife or child is pecuniarily interested, or in which he is related to either party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity. The prohibition is not limited to cases where a judge hears evidence but includes any act of a judicial nature, such as resolving motions and issuing orders. The summary and non-adversarial nature of a proceeding does not exempt it from the disqualification rule.

• Appearance of Impartiality — Judges must not only be honest and impartial but must also appear to be honest and impartial in the dispensation of justice. Judges should ensure their acts are circumspect and do not arouse suspicion in the minds of the public.

• "In an administrative proceeding, therefore, a complainant is a mere witness. He or she is not indispensable to the proceedings because there are no private interests involved." — This passage articulates the rationale for why a complainant's withdrawal does not divest the Court of jurisdiction over administrative cases against judiciary officers.

• "The fact that a petition for notarial commission is summary and non-adversarial in nature does not remove it from the ambit of Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court." — This establishes the ratio decidendi that the compulsory disqualification of judges applies even to summary, non-adversarial proceedings involving a judge's spouse.

• "Not only must they be honest and impartial, but they must also appear to be honest and impartial in the dispensation of justice. Judges should make sure that their acts are circumspect and do not arouse suspicion in the minds of the public." — This articulates the standard of appearance of impartiality required of judges, frequently cited in judicial ethics jurisprudence.

• Ricafort vs. Atty. Medina, 785 Phil. 911 (2016) — Cited for the proposition that a complainant in an administrative proceeding is a mere witness and not indispensable to the proceedings.
• Lim, Jr. vs. Judge Magallanes, 548 Phil. 566 (2007) — Cited for the principle that the Court's constitutional mandate to supervise judiciary officials cannot be frustrated by private arrangements of the parties.
• Mayor Sales vs. Judge Calvan, 428 Phil. 1 (2002) — Cited for the definition of "sitting" in a case as including any act of a judicial nature, not limited to hearing evidence, and for the principle that the rationale behind disqualification applies equally to non-adversarial proceedings.
• Re: Inhibition of Judge Eddie R. Rojas, 358 Phil. 790 (1998) — Cited within Mayor Sales vs. Judge Calvan for the definition of "sit" in a case.
• Villaluz vs. Judge Mijares, 351 Phil. 836 (1998) — Controlling precedent applied directly: a judge was found to have violated Section 1, Rule 137 for failing to recuse herself from her grandson's petition for correction of entry, establishing that non-adversarial proceedings do not escape the compulsory disqualification rule.
• De la Cruz vs. Judge Bersamira, 402 Phil. 671 (2001) — Cited for the principle that judges must not only be honest and impartial but must also appear to be so.

• Section 3(e), Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) — Penalizes public officers who cause undue injury to any party or give unwarranted benefits to a private party through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence. The Court found no violation as no conspiracy or unwarranted benefit was established.
• Section 5(a), Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) — Requires public officials to act promptly on letters and requests within fifteen working days from receipt. The Court found compliance, as the requested order was mailed five days after receipt.
• Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court — Provides for the compulsory disqualification of judges from sitting in cases where they, their wife, or child is pecuniarily interested, or where they are related to a party within the sixth degree of consanguinity or affinity. Judge Alzate was found to have violated this provision by acting on his wife's notarial commission petition.
• Section 5, Canon III, New Code of Judicial Conduct — Requires judges to disqualify themselves from proceedings where they cannot decide impartially or where it may appear to a reasonable observer that they cannot do so, including where the judge's spouse has a financial or other interest in the outcome.
• Section 4, Rule III, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires the executive judge to conduct a summary hearing on a petition for notarial commission to determine sufficiency in form and substance, truth of allegations, and the applicant's understanding of the Notarial Rules.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson-First Division), Caguioa, J., Reyes, Jr., J., and Lopez, J., concurred.