Title
Sindon vs. Alzate
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-20-2576
Decision Date
Jan 29, 2020
Judge Alzate reprimanded for failing to recuse in wife’s notarial case; no liability for inaction or conspiracy. Atty. Querrer cleared.

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-20-2576)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background and Parties
    • Complainant: Samson B. Sindon, who filed an administrative complaint.
    • Respondents:
      • Presiding Judge Raphiel F. Alzate of the RTC-Branch 1, Bangued, Abra.
      • Clerk of Court, Atty. Janice Siganay Querrer.
    • Related Party: Atty. Ma. Saniata Liwliwa Gonzales-Alzate, wife of Judge Alzate, whose notarial commission was the subject of controversy.
  • The Complaint and Allegations
    • Filing and Context
      • The complaint was filed on October 12, 2017, by Sindon through counsel Atty. Jean Phebie De Mesa.
      • Alleged violations include:
        • Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), which prohibits giving any undue injury or unwarranted benefit to a private party in the discharge of official functions.
ii. Section 5 of Republic Act No. 6713, which mandates a prompt response (within fifteen working days) to letters or requests from the public. iii. Section 1 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, concerning the disqualification of judges when personal interests or familial relationships could compromise judicial impartiality.
  • Specific Allegations
    • On September 6, 2017, Sindon’s counsel requested a copy of Judge Alzate’s order granting notarial commission to his wife, which was filed at the Office of the Clerk of Court (OCC) under the supervision of Atty. Querrer.
    • It was alleged that:
      • Atty. Querrer denied the request and suppressed the record, thus failing her duty to act promptly.
ii. Judge Alzate and Atty. Querrer conspired to give undue benefit to Atty. Gonzales-Alzate by granting her petition for notarial commission. iii. Judge Alzate violated Rule 137 by failing to recuse himself from proceedings involving his wife.
  • Respondents’ Counterarguments and Explanations
    • Judge Alzate’s Comment (September 5, 2018)
      • Asserted that Sindon’s letter was dubious:
        • The name “Samson Vista” was used instead of “Samson Sindon.”
ii. The requesting counsel’s address and the purpose of the request were inadequately stated.
  • Claimed the complaint was an act of harassment influenced by political rivalry, noting Sindon’s alliance with Mayor Jendricks Luna—a complainant in another case against him.
  • Stated that he granted his wife’s petition after her full compliance with the notarial commission requirements, and there was no rule prohibiting such grant to a spouse.
  • Clerk’s Comment (Atty. Querrer, September 5, 2018)
    • Detailed the procedural aspects:
      • The original request was received on September 6, 2017.
ii. Judge Alzate, while away at another station, instructed that the request be reviewed and the order be sent via mail. iii. On September 8, 2017, the order was mailed as directed, in accordance with Section 5(a) of RA 6713.
  • Corroboration by Atty. Gonzales-Alzate
    • Her affidavit confirmed the sequence of events.
    • She contended that Sindon was compelled by Mayor Luna to file the complaint due to preexisting political grievances.
  • Administrative Investigation Findings
    • Report and Recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
      • Focused on the alleged failure to act promptly on Sindon’s letter-request.
        • It was found that the requested order was mailed five days after receipt of the request, well within the 15-day period mandated by RA 6713.
      • Regarding the purported conspiracy to benefit Atty. Gonzales-Alzate:
        • The preparation and processing of her petition were routine, involving a stenographer and fell outside the clerk’s discretionary authority.
      • With respect to acting on his wife’s petition:
        • Judge Alzate was held liable for violating Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court by not recusing himself from a matter involving his wife.
    • Motion to Withdraw the Complaint
      • Sindon filed a motion on September 10, 2018, to withdraw his complaint, claiming he was misinformed about the allegations.
      • However, his withdrawal did not affect the administrative jurisdiction of the court over the case.

Issues:

  • Effect of Withdrawal
    • Whether Sindon’s motion to withdraw his complaint deprives the Court of jurisdiction over the administrative cases against Judge Alzate and Atty. Querrer.
  • Administrative Liability for Inaction
    • Whether Judge Alzate and Atty. Querrer can be held administratively liable for their purported inaction on Sindon’s letter-request for a copy of the notarial commission order.
  • Disqualification and Impartiality
    • Whether Judge Alzate violated Section 1, Rule 137 of the Rules of Court by not recusing himself from hearing and deciding on his wife’s petition for notarial commission.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms