Lopez v. Jubay

8. Lopez v. Atty.
Jubay
A.M. No. MTJ-13-1837 ; September 24, 2014
FACTS:
Complainant Conrado Lopez, through his counsel Atty. Jubay, alleged that when he was eight years old, he inherited from his
adoptive father Restituto Lopez one-half (1/2) of Lot No. 1718 with an area of 355 square meters located in Balamban, Cebu,
evidenced by a document entitled "Katapusan Panugon" (Testamente). While complainant’s adoptive mother Honorata Lopez
received and cultivated the other half of the lot until the latter’s death in 1982. He took over the cultivation of the land after he retired
as a seafarer in 1988.
Complainant alleged that sometime in October 2004, he and the Respondent Judge Jubay met in a waiting shed located in
front of the house of the latter’s grandmother in Cebu. At that meeting, the respondent allegedly deceived him into signing a Special
Power of Attorney (SPA) to process the sale of lot to the prospective buyer, Aboitiz Group of Company. Unknown to the complainant,
the said SPA contained at the bottom portion, a so-called "Waiver of Rights" that the respondent had deceptively inserted in order to
strip him of his ownership of Lot. Subsequently, he was ordered to cease cultivating the land because of the waiver of rights he signed
in the SPA.
Respondent vehemently denied that he convinced the complainant to sell his shares in the property; he claimed that it was the
complainant who was interested in selling his shares after he got tired of cultivating the land. He also denied that he deceived the
complainant into signing the Waiver of Rights. He contended that the filing of the administrative case against him was intended to
embarrass and harass him.
Respondent further stated that the signing of the Waiver of Rights was done after he discovered that the complainant was not
legally adopted. He added that since there had been no legal adoption, the complainant could not be considered as a legal heir and was
not entitled to any portion of the land. He stated, too, that his participation in the sale transaction was limited to informing his parents
and relatives that the complainant is not a legal heir of Resitituto.
Findings of the Office of the Court Administrator:
The City Prosecutor found that the complainant’s allegations lacked merit and evidentiary proof. It also found that the complainant
failed to discharge the burden of proving the respondents’ administrative liability and recommended the dismissal of the administrative
complaint for lack of merit.
ISSUE:
Whether Judge Jubay violated Code of Judicial Conduct when he acted as Attorny-in-fact
HELD:
YES. General rule, a judge is prohibited from serving as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or other fiduciary. The
intent of the rule is to limit a judge's involvement in the affairs and interests of private individuals to minimize the risk of conflict with
his judicial duties and to allow him to devote his undivided attention to the performance of his official functions. When a member of
the bench serves as administrator of the properties of private individuals, he runs the risk of losing his neutrality and impartiality,
especially when the interests of his principal conflicts with those of the litigant who comes before his court.
The only exception to this rule as set forth in Rule 5.06 is when the estate or trust belongs to, or the ward is a member of his
immediate family, and only if his service as executor, administrator, trustee, guardian or fiduciary will not interfere with the proper
performance of his judicial duties.
As a judge who is expected to observe the ethical rules that govern judicial conduct both in public and private affairs, the
respondent should have been more circumspect in accepting the appointment as an attorney-infact of the complainant. He should be
reminded that the Code of Judicial Conduct – which, among others, prohibits members of the bench from engaging in extra-judicial
activities that tends to create a conflict with their judicial duties– must be strictly complied with. 11 We conclude that for violation of
the rules, the respondent should be sanctioned.
Respondent is Guilty of Impropriety. Members of the Judiciary should 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.
Canon II of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:
Rule 2.00: A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Rule 2.01: A judge should so behave
at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
A judge should personify judicial integrity and exemplify honest public service. The personal behavior of a judge, both in the
performance of official duties and in private life should be above suspicion.
In the present administrative complaint, we agree with the OCA that the respondent’s acts of: (1) making the complainant sign at least
two (2) documents – consisting of SPA and Waiver of Rights – without the presence of a counsel; and (2) allowing the notarization of
the documents outside the presence of the executor, amount to impropriety.

Lopez v. Jubay

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lopez v. Jubay

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lopez v. Jubay

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8. Lopez v. Atty.

Canon II of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

You might also like