Heinz R. Heck vs. Judge Anthony E.

Santos

A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657, February 23, 2004

FACTS:

Heinz R. Heck filed a disbarment case against Judge Anthony E. Santos, who retired as Cagayan de Oro
RTC judge on May 22, 2002. Judge Santos allegedly violated the Notarial Law. The complaint alleged
that Judge Santos subscribed and forwarded, on a non-regular basis, notarized documents since January
1980, when in fact, it was only until January 9, 1984, that he became a duly commissioned notary public.
The complaint further alleged that Judge Santos failed to forward his Notarial Register after the
expiration of his commission in December 1989.

Heck vs Santos (2004)Facts: In 2001, Heinz Heck filed a complaint, praying for the disbarment of Judge
Anthony Santos, a Cagayan de Oro RTC judge. He alleged that from 1980 to 1984, Santos had been
notarizing documents without being duly commission as notary public.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the fact that Judge Santos was already retired precludes an administrative charge
against him.

2. Whether or not a judge may be disciplined for acts committed before his appointment to the
judiciary.

3. Whether or not an administrative complaint against a member of the bar prescribe.

Held:

Issue 1: No. In order for an administrative complaint against a retiring or retired judge or justice to be
dismissed outright, the following requisites must concur: (1) the complaint must have been filed within
six months from the compulsory retirement of the judge or justice; (2) the cause of action must have
occurred at least a year before such filing; and, (3) it is shown that the complaint was intended to harass
the respondent. These elements are not present in this case.

Issue 2: Yes. It need not be shown that the respondent continued the doing of the act or acts
complained of; it is sufficient that the evidence on record supports the charge on the respondent,
considering the gravity of the offense. Although there is jurisprudence to the effect that the act
complained of must be continuing in order for the respondent judge to be disciplined therefor, the
respondents in those cases were actually exonerated, because of lack of evidence. The Supreme Court,
as guardian of the legal profession, has ultimate disciplinary power over attorneys, which authority is
not only a right but a bounden duty as well. This is why respect and fidelity to the Court is demanded of
its members.
Issue 3: No. Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely
criminal. If the rule were otherwise, members of the bar would be emboldened to disregard the very
oath they took as lawyers, prescinding from the fact that as long as no private complainant would
immediately come forward, they stand a chance of being completely exonerated from whatever
administrative liability they ought to answer for. It is the duty of this Court to protect the integrity of the
practice of law as well as the administration of justice. No matter how much time has elapsed from the
time of the commission of the act complained of and the time of the institution of the complaint, erring
members of the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court. This categorical
pronouncement is aimed at unscrupulous members of the bench and bar, to deter them from
committing acts which violate the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Code of Judicial Conduct, or
the Lawyers Oath. This should particularly apply in this case, considering the seriousness of the matter
involved - the respondents dishonesty and the sanctity of notarial documents.