A.C. No. 500 - Ramirez vs. Ner

Arnaldo R. Borre, the complainant, filed an administrative complaint charging serious misconduct and grave abuse of discretion.
The respondents were Judge Felix L. Moya of the Court of First Instance, Tagum, Davao del Norte, and City Judge Gumersindo Arcilla of Davao City, both allegedly cronies and, in Judge Arcilla’s case, also a second cousin of Arnaldo.
The complaint involved two distinct issues:

The action of Judge Moya in proceeding with orders without a special raffle.
The notarization of a deed of sale by Judge Arcilla in connection with private business transactions.

On September 8, 1977, a complaint was filed by Calvin R. Borre against his brother Arnaldo and other parties over a disputed deed of sale related to a parcel of land.
On the same day, Executive Judge Felix R. Moya issued an order directing the service of summons, setting the hearing for preliminary injunction (fixed for September 16, 1977), and enjoining the defendants from performing acts under dispute.
Despite the requirement for a raffle before acting on incidental or interlocutory matters, Judge Moya proceeded with the order prior to the raffle, asserting the urgency to prevent irreparable injury.
On November 29, 1977, Judge Moya inhibited himself from the case, after which the case was re-assigned to Judge Alejandro C. Sipalan who rendered a decision approving a compromise settlement on February 2, 1978.

Arnaldo R. Borre charged that Judge Moya violated Circular No. 7 (dated September 23, 1974) which mandates that incidental or interlocutory matters in cases not yet raffled require a special raffle before the judge acts.
Judge Moya contended that his order merely preserved the status quo and that the urgency justified his action; however, his failure to confirm the raffle status of the case and the lack of proper documentation (i.e., absence of stenographic notes and missing signatures) were central to the complaint.

Arnaldo R. Borre alleged that Judge Arcilla notarized a deed of sale executed by Mrs. Prieto in favor of Calvin R. Borre, even though Mrs. Prieto had previously sold the same parcel to Arnaldo.
The complaint indicated that Judge Arcilla received fees (P1,400) for legal and notarial services, and that he was involved as a legal consultant and in business ventures with the Borre brothers, including an equity interest in a water supply corporation.
Judge Arcilla defended his actions by stating that he had rendered free legal advice for over ten years, and his involvement in private dealings did not prejudice his official functions.
Arnaldo eventually requested the withdrawal or dismissal of his complaint against Judge Arcilla, citing that his administrative action was spawned by a misunderstanding and that the conflicting civil case had already been settled.

The central allegation was that his issuance of the restraining order prior to a proper raffle violated Circular No. 7, which specifically prohibits an Executive Judge from acting on incidental matters in cases not yet raffled.
The procedural defects, including the absence of proper stenographic recording and initialing of the case assignment, were pointed out as evidence of his non-compliance.

Arnaldo alleged that by acting as an ex officio notary in a private transaction, Judge Arcilla crossed the boundaries of his judicial capacity.
The contention was based on the statutory provisions which restrict a city judge from acting as notary public ex officio, a privilege exclusively reserved for specified judicial officers (e.g., municipal judges under certain statutory authorizations).

Whether Judge Moya, by issuing a restraining (status quo) order before a proper raffle was conducted and without complying with the formalities mandated by Circular No. 7, committed a violation amounting to serious misconduct and abuse of discretion.
Whether the administrative requirements regarding the recording and initialing of case assignment records (raffle procedure) were properly observed by Judge Moya.
Whether Judge Arcilla, by notarizing private documents and engaging in legal consultancy for the Borre brothers, violated the statutory limits on a city judge acting as a notary public ex officio.
Whether the actions of Judge Arcilla, particularly his involvement in private business in contradiction with his judicial role and the rules governing civil service employees, constituted grounds for disciplinary action.