ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. P-93-989. June 7, 2000]

OCAD vs. CLERK OF COURT RODRIGO B. GALO

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 7 2000.

Administrative Matter No: P-93-989 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Clerk of Court Rodrigo B. Galo, Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya.)

On 21 September 1999 Decision was rendered in this case the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the balance of respondent Atty. Rodrigo B. Galo's terminal leave pay in the amount of P141,961.62 as well as any other retirement benefit that may be due him is ordered FORFEIT in favor of the government for his. Gross Dishonesty and Grave -Misconduct committed while in office. Furthermore, respondent is declared disqualified from reemployment in the government or in any government-owned or controlled corporation.

SO ORDERED.

Relative to the foregoing decision respondent asks for clarification on two points: (1) whether he is also disqualified from being commissioned as notary public considering that he remains a full-pledged member of the Philippine Bar; and (2) whether his provident funds from the Home Development Mutual Fund or PAG-IBIG is also included as one of the retirement benefits ordered forfeit in favor of the government.

The text of the Notarial Law is found in Chapter II, Title IV, of the Revised Administrative Code. Section 233 lists the qualifications for appointment as notary public -

x x x a person who has been admitted to the practice of law or who has completed and passed in the studies of law in a reputable university or school of law, or has passed the examination for the office of justice of the peace (now judge of Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court) or clerk or deputy clerk of court, or be a person who has at sometime held the office of clerk or deputy clerk of court for a period of not less than two years, or a person who had qualified for the office of notary public under the Spanish sovereignty.

In the chartered cities and in the capitals of the provinces, where there are two or more lawyers appointed as notaries public, no person other than a lawyer or a person who had qualified to hold the office of notary public under Spanish sovereignty shall hold said office.

In municipalities or municipal districts where no person resides having the qualifications hereinbefore specified or having them, refuse to hold such office, judges of first instance may appoint other persons temporarily to exercise the office of notary public who have the requisite qualifications of fitness and morality. (As amended by C.A. 514, Sec. 1.)

It must be noted that as compared to the above enumerated qualifications for appointment as notary public only one (1) ground, that is, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude is specified in Sec. 234 of the Notarial Law as ground for disqualification. Hence, considering that respondent was convicted by the Sandiganbayan only of Violation of Sec. 218 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act or Failure to Render Accounts, which does not involve moral turpitude, it would seem that respondent is not disqualified by that conviction alone from being commissioned as notary public. After all, judges of the Regional Trial Courts are authorized to appoint as many notaries public as the public good requires provided that those to be appointed must satisfy all the qualification requirements for such appointment.

As to the second query, we adopt the view of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that "respondent's provident funds from the Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF) or PAG-I.B.I.G. Fund should not be included in the retirement benefits ordered forfeited x x x in favor of the government. The Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF or PAG-I.B.I.G. Fund), by its nature, is private in character wholly owned by its members and the government only administers the same in. trust to be applied exclusively for the mutual benefit of its members."

ACCORDINGLY, in response to the "Motion for Clarification' dated 12 November 1999 and "Urgent Motion for Clarification" dated 11 January 2000, respondent Atty. Rodrigo 13. Galo is not disqualified from being commissioned notary public provided that all the qualifications enumerated in Sec. 233, Chapter II, Title IV, of the Revised Administrative Code are satisfied, and provided further that the public good so requires his appointment. Moreover, his provident funds from the HDMF or PAG-LB.I.G. Fund are not among the retirement benefits ordered forfeit in favor of, the Government by virtue of the Decision dated 21 September 1999.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE