Facts:

This case involves an administrative complaint filed by Regino and Conceso Barbarona against Judge Alejandro T. Canda, the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloy-Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte. The complaint was lodged on April 20, 2001, alleging that the respondent judge knowingly rendered an unjust judgment, exhibited ignorance of the law, demonstrated incompetence, committed grave abuse of discretion, and engaged in grave misconduct. The complainants, who are brothers, were involved in a legal dispute concerning a case for quieting of title and damages, designated as Civil Case No. 356, where their father, Hermogenes Barbarona, was a defendant. The plaintiff, Gerardo Magallanes, claimed ownership of two parcels of land, asserting that he purchased them from Felipa R. Goria, who assured him that the land was free from tenants. However, the Barbaronas contested this claim, asserting their rights over the bamboo thickets on the land. They filed a motio...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Complainants Regino and Conceso Barbarona, brothers, initiated an administrative complaint against Judge Alejandro T. Canda of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloy-Tampilisan, Zamboanga del Norte.
• The complaint arose from events during a civil case (Civil Case No. 356) involving a dispute over land title and possession between Gerardo Magallanes and the Barbarona family.
• The original civil case centered on Magallanes’ claim that he was the true owner of two parcels of land registered under TCT Nos. T-44256, ZN and T-44257, ZN and sought a judicial declaration confirming his title to the properties.

Chronology and Proceedings in the Civil Case

• Magallanes alleged that he purchased the land from Felipa R. Goria based on assurances regarding the status of the landholdings, particularly that the tenants had surrendered their rights.
• Complainants, specifically Conceso Barbarona along with their father Hermogenes Barbarona, contested Magallanes’ claim by asserting their own rights over the bamboo thickets covering the property.
• At the initiative of the complainants, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer conducted a pre-litigation conference between the disputing parties.
• The Barbaronas moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction (asserting a landlord-tenant issue and an unpecuniary cause of action) but failed to prove proper service of the motion, resulting in its dismissal.
• Due to the lapse of time for filing an answer and the subsequent declaration of default, Magallanes was allowed to present his evidence ex parte.
• On June 13, 1995, Judge Canda rendered judgment in favor of Magallanes, declaring the titles “clear from clouds” and dismissing the Barbaronas’ claim on the basis of being unfounded and unconstitutional.
• The judgment further imposed costs and damages on the Barbaronas and was later affirmed on appeal by the Regional Trial Court of Sidanga.

Subsequent Enforcement and Controversial Aspects

• After the finality of the judgment, Judge Canda issued a writ of execution in November 1996 leading to the levy and public auction sale of Lot No. 1081, Pls-65, to satisfy the awards granted to Magallanes.
• The property was ultimately sold, and a final deed of sale was executed in favor of Magallanes after the Barbaronas failed to redeem it within the prescribed period.
• The administrative complaint against Judge Canda included several allegations:
• That he, in ignorance of P.D. Nos. 316 and 1038, failed to determine whether a tenancy relationship existed between the parties by not referring the matter to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
• That he connived with the plaintiff and his predecessor in interest to evict the Barbarona family from their landholdings.
• That he was grossly incompetent, inefficient, and neglectful of his judicial duties—allegedly engaging in a lucrative trucking and copra buying-selling business.
• That as a notary public ex officio, he improperly notarized documents (specifically a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 9, 1993) which were not directly connected with his judicial functions and charged rates comparable to private practitioners.

Evidence and Testimonies Presented

• Complainants argued that had Judge Canda conducted a preliminary review or referred the case for tenancy verification under the then-applicable agrarian laws, the case may not have been heard by him.
• They contended that his actions, including the declaration of default based on a defective motion to dismiss, indicated possible collusion with Magallanes.
• Evidence related to his alleged business activities was based on hearsay—assertions that he owned a truck and engaged in copra buying, though no concrete evidence was presented.
• Regarding the notarization issue, the complainants presented a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale, citing a discrepancy between the notarization date and the official receipt date, alleging non-compliance with Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90.
• Judge Canda defended his actions by asserting his lack of personal interest in the civil case, the technicality of the failed motion to dismiss, and the absence of any business operation interfering with his judicial duties.
• He further justified his notarization of the Deed of Absolute Sale by claiming a dearth of available notaries in the municipality at the relevant time, referring to the provision of acting as notary public ex officio under a Supreme Court Circular.

Issue:

Jurisdictional and Procedural Issues in the Civil Case

• Whether Judge Canda erred in not referring Civil Case No. 356 to the DAR for a preliminary determination of the existence of a tenancy relationship, especially under the now-repealed P.D. Nos. 316 and 1038.
• Whether the failure to secure proof of service on the motion to dismiss, thereby leading to the expiration of the answer period and default declaration, was a sufficient basis for the judgment rendered against the Barbaronas.

Allegations of Judicial Misconduct and Neglect

• Whether Judge Canda’s conduct in the handling of the civil case—particularly the timing and manner of his decisions—amounted to connivance with Magallanes.
• Whether his alleged engagement in extraneous business activities (trucking and copra trading) resulted in a neglect of his judicial duties and inefficient case management.

The Notarization Controversy

• Whether Judge Canda, in notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale, violated Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90 by:
• Not certifying the unavailability of a public notary.
• Failing to remit the notarial fees (P18.50) to the appropriate governmental fund as required.
• Whether his actions in this respect constituted an unauthorized exercise of private practice functions as a notary public.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)