Facts:

The administrative charge against Raymundo R. Cruz, a Municipal Judge of Norzagaray, Bulacan (now retired), originated from a complaint lodged by Monica Sarmiento on June 5, 1968. The complaint accused Cruz of "serious professional malpractice, grave misconduct, abuse of functions of his office," and “highly reprehensible fraud and deceit” against Monica and her father, Emiliano Sarmiento. The Department of Justice referred the complaint to the District Judge at the Court of First Instance of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, on June 1, 1970, for a thorough investigation, which was conducted by District Judge Ambrosio Geraldez. His findings and recommendations were submitted on November 21, 1972, and subsequently forwarded to the Supreme Court on January 23, 1973.

The crux of the case is rooted in a deed of donation prepared by Cruz on May 17, 1953, in which Emiliano Sarmiento donated land to his children, including Monica. However, this deed was never registered. In September 1964

...

Facts:

Background and Parties

• Complainant: Monica Sarmiento, representing her own interests and those of her father, Emiliano Sarmiento.
• Respondent: Raymundo R. Cruz, Municipal Judge of Norzagaray, Bulacan (now retired) and a first cousin to Catalina Cruz, wife of Emiliano Sarmiento.
• Relationship of trust: The Sarmiento family placed complete trust in the respondent to handle matters pertaining to their property and finances.

Property Transaction and Donation

• In 1953, the respondent prepared and ratified a deed of donation whereby Emiliano Sarmiento donated aliquot portions of a parcel of land (covered by OCT No. 204 of the Bulacan Registry) to his children: Monica, Santos, Magdalena, and Apolinario.
• Although the donation was accepted by the donees, the instrument was never registered.

Negotiation and Sale of the Property

• In September 1964, the respondent volunteered to negotiate the sale of the donated land to the House of Investments, Inc.
• With the consent of Emiliano Sarmiento, the respondent facilitated the sale for a price of P50,000.00, preparing and notarizing the deed of sale while acting in his capacity as Municipal Judge.

Handling of Sale Proceeds and Subsequent Withdrawals

• The sale proceeds: P10,000.00 was received directly by Emiliano Sarmiento while the remaining P40,000.00 was deposited with the Industrial Finance Corporation in a joint account of Emiliano and Monica Sarmiento, based on the respondent’s assurance of earning 12% per annum interest.
• Withdrawals from the joint account:
• P20,000.00 was withdrawn on November 4, 1965, after respondent made Emiliano Sarmiento sign the withdrawal slips.
• Subsequent withdrawals in the amounts of P10,000.00 and P5,000.00 were made, totaling P35,000.00.
• Discovery of the issue: Monica Sarmiento only discovered the withdrawals when she received a very small amount of interest from the Industrial Finance Corporation.

Respondent’s Explanations and Subsequent Documents

• On February 28, 1966, the respondent, using an instrument on his court’s stationery (Exhibit “D”), admitted to receiving the withdrawn sum of P35,000.00 purportedly for investment in a trucking business with a guaranteed 12% per annum return.
• Prior to this, the respondent prepared a document signed by Emiliano Sarmiento designating the remaining cash solely to Monica Sarmiento, excluding her siblings.
• In December 1967, amid disputes among the Sarmiento siblings regarding the P40,000.00 remaining in the deposit, the respondent drafted another document witnessed by himself and signed by both Emiliano and Monica Sarmiento, transferring the amount exclusively to Monica.

Legal Actions and Compromises

• A complaint for estafa was initially filed by Monica Sarmiento due to the failure of respondent to render the promised interest and to return P35,000.00, but it was later withdrawn.
• To secure the payment of P41,000.00 (which included unpaid interest), the respondent executed a real estate mortgage over his own property in favor of Monica Sarmiento.
• On October 7, 1968, the respondent filed an interpleader complaint involving Emiliano Sarmiento and his children, leading eventually to a compromise agreement where the sum due, which by December 12, 1968, had grown to P43,000.00, was distributed among the Sarmiento family.

Investigation and Findings

• The administrative charge was lodged on June 5, 1968, against the respondent on allegations of serious professional malpractice, grave misconduct, abuse of functions, and fraud and deceit.
• The Investigating Judge’s findings:
• Concluded that the respondent, enjoying full trust from the Sarmiento family, “wantonly violated” that trust by misappropriating their funds for his personal benefit.
• Determined that respondent’s actions allowed him to withdraw P35,000.00 merely by having Emiliano Sarmiento sign withdrawal slips without proper consent or the knowledge of Monica Sarmiento.
• Noted the respondent’s inconsistent explanations regarding the source and purpose of the withdrawn sum, at times referring to it as a contribution for a joint venture, a loan, or even directly as a loan from Monica Sarmiento as evidenced in the real estate mortgage instrument.

Mitigating Circumstances

• Despite the misconduct, respondent had reimbursed the amount in question (P41,000.00 including interest) before the final resolution.
• Additional mitigating factors considered included the respondent’s decade-long service in the Judiciary, his retirement status, and his advanced age/physical condition.

Issue:

• Whether the respondent, in his capacity as Municipal Judge, committed acts amounting to serious professional malpractice, grave misconduct, abuse of office, and fraud by:

• Whether the respondent’s inconsistent explanations regarding the withdrawal (contrasting claims of it being a loan, a contribution to a joint venture, or directly funds loaned by Monica Sarmiento) contributed to the charge of misconduct.

• Whether the prior, delayed reimbursement of funds and the remedial real estate mortgage, together with the respondent’s personal circumstances (retirement and physical condition), serve as sufficient mitigating circumstances to lessen the severity of punishment.

• The scope of disciplinary action appropriate to a judge who has abused the public trust in the performance of his official duties.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)