Facts:

The case involves Estanislao G. Lapena, Jr. as the complainant against Judge Martonino R. Marcos and Atty. Crisostomo T. Roque, the Clerk of Court. The events leading to the complaint occurred in the context of their roles as members of the Board of Directors of the Tarlac Electric Cooperative, Inc. (TARELCO). Lapena served as the General Manager and an ex officio member of the Board in 1977 but was dismissed from TARELCO on July 18, 1978. Judge Marcos was one of the incorporators of TARELCO, having been elected Secretary in 1975 and later President in 1976, while Atty. Roque joined the Board on July 2, 1977. The complaint alleges that during their tenure, both respondents engaged in acts of dishonesty, breach of trust, and gross misconduct. Specifically, they were accused of attending board meetings during official working hours, receiving compensation for these meetings while also drawing their salaries, and conspiring to divert cooperative funds for personal accident insur...

Facts:

Background of the Parties

• Complainant Estanislao G. Lapena, Jr. was the General Manager and ex-officio member of the Board of Directors of Tarlac Electric Cooperative, Inc. (TARELCO) in 1977. He was dismissed from TARELCO on July 18, 1978.
• Respondent Judge Martonino R. Marcos was an incorporator of TARELCO and served as its Secretary and later as President of the Board of Directors from 1975 to 1978.
• Respondent Atty. Crisostomo T. Roque became a member of the Board of Directors of TARELCO on July 2, 1977.

Allegations Against Respondents

• Complainant alleged that respondents, while serving as members of the Board of Directors of TARELCO, committed acts of dishonesty, breach of trust, and gross misconduct by:
  1. Attending business board meetings during office hours and receiving compensation for such attendance while also collecting their government salaries.
  2. Diverting and converting TARELCO funds to pay for their personal accident insurance policies, causing damage to the cooperative and its members.
  3. Respondent Judge Marcos allegedly received P4,236.00 on March 12, 1977, and P1,500.00 on March 16, 1977, as ex-officio notary public for ratifying membership applications, which was a violation of the law and TARELCO’s by-laws.

Defenses of Respondents

• Respondent Roque denied the charges, stating that he performed his duties honestly and in the interest of the cooperative. He claimed he was not a member of the Board when Policy No. 1-20 (group accident insurance) was adopted and that the policy was later amended with the approval of the National Electrification Administration.
• Respondent Judge Marcos denied any wrongdoing, stating that Board meetings were held on Saturdays (when judges do not have sessions) and that he filed official leave for seminars. He admitted to receiving notarial fees for ratifying membership applications but claimed this was done to save TARELCO money, as regular notaries would charge more.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Eligibility of Government Officers to Serve in Cooperatives:

   • Under Presidential Decree No. 269, government officers and employees, including judges, are eligible to serve as members or directors of electric cooperatives, provided they do not devote official time to such activities. However, the Court has since adopted a policy (as of May 29, 1980) enjoining judges from participating in the affairs of electric cooperatives to avoid interference with their judicial duties.
   • Since respondent Judge Marcos served as a director of TARELCO from 1975 to 1978, before the Court’s policy was established, he was qualified to act in that capacity during his term.

2. Notarial Fees Received by Judge Marcos:

   • While municipal judges acting as notaries public ex-officio are generally limited to notarizing documents connected with their official duties, the Court recognized the practical need for judges to perform notarial services in rural areas where regular notaries are scarce.
   • However, Judge Marcos was required to account for and remit the notarial fees he received, as these fees are considered government funds under the Notarial Law.

3. Use of Cooperative Funds for Personal Accident Policies:

   • The Court found the respondents’ explanations satisfactory. The group accident insurance policy (Policy No. 1-20) was adopted by the Board and later amended with the approval of the National Electrification Administration. There was no evidence of improper diversion or conversion of funds.

Conclusion:

The Court dismissed the charges against respondents for lack of merit but ordered Judge Marcos to account for and remit the notarial fees he received. The ruling emphasized the importance of judges avoiding conflicts of interest and adhering to their primary judicial duties.