The Supreme Court (SC) slapped a P30,000 fine on a Mandaue City judge for acting as “attorney-in-fact” or a legal representative of a relative—a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Judge Rogelio Lucmayon of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities was found guilty of impropriety after he facilitated the transfer of ownership of a lot claimed by Conrado Lopez, a relative of the judge.
The High Court warned him that “a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.”
By serving as attorney-in-fact of Lopez, Associate Justice Arturo Brion said Lucmayon not only allowed himself to be distracted from the performance of his judicial duties but also performed all acts necessary to protect his relative’s interest.
“The respondent should have been more circumspect in accepting the appointment as an attorney-in-fact of the complainant (Lopez). We have repeatedly reminded members of the judiciary to keep their conduct beyond reproach and suspicion, and to be free from any appearance of impropriety in their personal behavior, both in the discharge of their official duties and in their everyday lives,” Brion said.
The Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits members of the bench from engaging in extra-judicial activities that tends to create a conflict with their judicial duties.
“By the very nature of their work, judges should observe an exacting standard of morality and decency. For no position exacts a greater demand on the moral righteousness and uprightness of an individual than a seat in the judiciary,” Brion said.
The issue stemmed from a complaint filed by Lopez who inherited a lot in Balamban town, Cebu from his adoptive father.
Sometime in October 2004, Lopez claimed that Judge Lucmayon allegedly deceived him into signing a Special Power of Attorney to process the sale of the lot to a prospective buyer.
After signing the document, Lopez said Lucmayon allegedly told him that he no longer has any right over the property.
When asked to comment about the complaint, Lucmayon vehemently denied that he convinced Lopez to sell his shares in the property.
He claimed that it was Lopez who was interested in selling his shares after he got tired of cultivating the land.
Lucmayon also denied having deceived Lopez into signing a document in order to strip the latter of his ownership of the lot.
The judge contended that the administrative case filed against him was aimed to embarrass and harass him.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) earlier dismissed the complaint against Lucmayon.
But upon review, Associate Justice Antonio Carpio recommended that the administrative case against Lucmayon be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter.
The OCA eventually found Lucmayon liable for requiring Lopez to sign the Special Power of Attorney and allowing a lawyer to notarize a Waiver of Rights without personal appearance of the parties.
Under rule 5.06 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, “a judge is prohibited from serving as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary.”
An exception to the rule is when the estate belongs to a member of his “immediate family.”
In Lucmayon’s case, the Supreme Court said Lopez clearly does not fall under his immediate family.