FIRST DIVISION
MAYOR
ARFRAN L.
QUIÑONES,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-02-1428
April 9, 2003 - versus -
JUDGE
FRANCISCO
H.
LOPEZ JR.,MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT
TRIAL COURT,LUPON, DAVAO
ORIENTAL,
Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O
N
VITUG,
J.:
A letter-complaint was
filed by Arfran L. Quiñones, Municipal Mayor of Lupon, Davao
Oriental,
before the Office of the Ombudsman about an alleged conspiracy among
Judge
Francisco H. Lopez, Jr., Atty. Francisco G. Geronilla and Manuel B.
Guiñez
in the improvident filing of the latter’s certificate of
candidacy.
The Office of the Ombudsman referred to this Court the charge against
Judge
Lopez pursuant to the ruling in Maceda vs. Vasquez[1]
to the effect that -chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Article VIII, Section
6 of the 1987 Constitution exclusively vests in the Supreme Court
administrative
supervision over all courts and court personnel, from the Presiding
Justice
of the Courts of Appeals down to the lowest municipal trial court
clerk.
By virtue of this power, it is only the Supreme Court that can oversee
the judges’ and court personnel’s compliance with all laws, and take
the
proper administrative action against them if they commit any violation
thereof. No other branch of government may intrude into this
power,
without running afoul of the doctrine of separation of powers.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The Ombudsman cannot
justify its investigation of petitioner on the powers granted to it by
the Constitution, for such a justification not only runs counter to the
specific mandate of the Constitution granting supervisory powers to the
Supreme Court over all courts and their personnel, but likewise
undermines
the independence of the judiciary."[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, now before the
Court is the instant administrative case against Judge Lopez.cralaw:red
Quiñones averred
in his complaint that Manuel B. Guiñez, a mayoralty candidate in
Lupon, Davao Oriental, filed his certificate of candidacy on 28
February
2001. The certificate of candidacy showed that it was subscribed
and sworn to before Judge Francisco H. Lopez, Jr., on even date in
Lupon,
Davao Oriental. Quiñones stated that Guiñez was, in
fact, confined at the St. Luke’s Medical Center in Manila from 20
February
2001 to 09 March 2001 that could not have made it possible for him to
appear
before respondent Judge on 28 February 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his comment on the
complaint, Judge Lopez admitted that he notarized the certificate of
candidacy
of Guiñez in Lupon while the latter was in Manila, but that
before
leaving for Manila, Guiñez, a prominent businessman in the
place,
made arrangements for the notarization of his pre-signed certificate of
candidacy when presented to him on 28 February 2001 by the other
candidates
belonging to the political party of Guiñez. He claimed
that
he was familiar with the signature of Guiñez as he, in his
capacity
as ex-officio notary public, had been notarizing documents for
Guiñez.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA), citing Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90, opined
that
respondent Judge should be held accountable for notarizing the
certificate
of candidacy of Guiñez in the latter’s absence and, indeed, for
notarizing the certificates of candidacy of Guiñez and his
political
party members, a matter beyond the scope of his authority as being an
ex-officio
notary public. The OCA recommended that respondent Judge should
be
made to pay a fine of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos and be warned
that
a repetition of the same or similar conduct in the future would be
dealt
with severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court adopts the
findings and recommendation of the OCA.cralaw:red
Circular No. 1-90, dated
26 February 1990 is clear, and it provides:
"Municipal Trial Court
(MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges are empowered to
perform the functions of notaries public ex officio under Section 76 of
Republic Act No. 296, as amended (otherwise known as the Judiciary Act
of 1948) and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code. But
the Court hereby lays down the following qualifications on the scope of
this power:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"MTC and MCTC judges
may act as notaries public ex officio in the notarization of documents
connected only with the exercise of their official functions and duties
(Borre vs. Moya, Adm. Matter No. 1765-CFI, October 17, 1980, 100 SCRA
314;
Penera vs. Dalocanog, Adm. Matter No. 2113-MJ, April 22, 1981, 104 SCRA
193.) They may not, as notaries public ex officio, undertake the
preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts and
other
acts of conveyances which bear no direct relation to the performance of
their functions as judges. The 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct not
only enjoins judges to regulate their extra-judicial activities in
order
to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties, but also
prohibits
them from engaging in the private practice of law (Canon 5 and Rule
5.07).cralaw:red
"However, the Court,
taking judicial notice of the fact that there are still municipalities
which have neither lawyers nor notaries public, rules that MTC and MCTC
judges assigned to municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or
notaries
public may, in the capacity as notaries public ex officio, perform any
act within the competency of a regular notary public, provided that:
(1)
all notarial fees charged be for the account of the Government and
turned
over to the municipal treasurer (Lapena, Jr. vs. Marcos, Adm. Matter
1969-MJ,
June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 572); and, (2) certification be made in the
notarized
documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such
municipality or circuit."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Undoubtedly, then, respondent
Judge acted beyond the scope of his authority as a notary public ex
officio
in notarizing the certificates of candidacy of Guiñez and his
other
party members. The records do not indicate that there was no
other
notary public in Lupon, Davao Oriental, which could have justified the
possible notarization of documents that had no direct relation to
respondent’s
performance of his functions as a Judge. In any event, respondent
Judge failed to issue a certification as to such lack of a notary
public
within his municipality or circuit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court takes no pleasure
in seeing respondent Judge repeat an infraction of this nature.
In
its resolution of 09 February 2000, in A.M. No. MTJ-96-1076,[3]
the Court has already imposed upon respondent Judge a fine of One
Thousand
(P1,000.00) Pesos and "sternly warned" him for notarizing a private
document,
denominated "Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate with Special Power of
Attorney," in violation of Circular 1-90.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As if it were not bad
enough, respondent Judge admittedly notarized the certificate of
candidacy
without the presence of the affiant. The contention of respondent
Judge that Guiñez, before going to Manila, made an arrangement
with
him regarding the notarization of a pre-signed document was itself a
transgression
of a notary public’s duty to demand that the document be signed in his
presence. In Coronado vs. Felongco,[4]
this Court held:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Time and again, we
have emphasized that notarization is not an empty routine. It
converts
a private document into a public one and renders it admissible in court
without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is
by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face and, for this
reason,
notaries public must observe with the utmost care the basic
requirements
in the performance of their duties. Otherwise, the confidence of
the public in the integrity of this form of conveyance would be
undermined."[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, Judge Francisco
H. Lopez, Jr., is found guilty for unauthorized notarization of a
private
document in violation of Circular 1-90, and he is hereby ordered to pay
a FINE of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos with a warning that another
infraction
on his part will definitely be dealt with most severely.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
(Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
G.R. No. 102781, 22 April 1993, 221 SCRA 464.
[2]
At pp. 466-467.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Doughlas vs. Lopez, Jr., 325 SCRA 129.
[4]
A.C. No. 2611, 15 November 2000, 344 SCRA 565.
[5]
At pp. 568-569.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |