Pallugna v. Reyes
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Judge Alejandro B. Pallugna, Jr., the municipal judge of Magsaysay, Misamis Oriental, held a commission as a notary public for the province and its cities. The Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental issued an order requiring him to show cause why his notarial commission should not be revoked. Procedural History: The order to show cause was based on an opinion of the Secretary of Justice dated October 22, 1946, which stated that a justice of the peace (or municipal judge) cannot engage in notarial work except in an ex officio capacity. Judge Pallugna responded, asserting his continuous commission since 1957, regular renewals after his appointment as municipal judge in 1964, and the lack of prohibition for municipal judges to act as notaries outside their territorial limits. He also argued that under the Judiciary Act prior to its amendment, municipal judges were allowed to pursue other vocations if they rendered sufficient daily service. The Appeal: Despite his arguments, the district judge ordered the cancellation of his notarial commission. Judge Pallugna appealed this order, raising the sole issue of the correctness of the revocation, primarily arguing that no law prohibited him from performing notarial services outside his municipality, and that the Secretary of Justice's opinion should be interpreted narrowly.
Issue(s)
Whether a municipal judge is prohibited from acting as a regular notary public. Whether a municipal judge, even if allowed to act as an ex officio notary public, can do so outside his territorial jurisdiction. Whether the amendment of Section 77 of the Judiciary Act by Republic Act 6031 rendered the issue moot and academic.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Court of First Instance revoking Judge Pallugna's notarial commission. The Court held that municipal judges are prohibited from acting as regular notaries public and that even their ex officio notarial functions are limited to their territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court noted that Republic Act 6031 amended Section 77 of the Judiciary Act, withdrawing the authorization for municipal judges to engage in other vocations, thus rendering the issue moot.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that municipal judges are prohibited from acting as regular notaries public. This prohibition is explicitly stated in Sections 235 and 242 of the Revised Administrative Code. Section 235 clearly states that justices of the peace (municipal judges) shall not act as notaries public except in their ex officio capacity. Section 242 further clarifies that even ex officio notaries public are limited to performing their duties within the territorial jurisdiction of their respective offices. On Issue 2: The Court held that even the ex officio notarial functions of a municipal judge are strictly limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the municipality over which they have jurisdiction as justices of the peace. This limitation is expressly provided for in Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code, which defines the scope of authority for ex officio notaries public, including justices of the peace. On Issue 3: The Court found that the issue had become moot and academic due to the amendment of Section 77 of the Judiciary Act by Republic Act 6031, effective August 4, 1969. This amendment increased the salaries of municipal judges and, crucially, withdrew the previous authorization for them to pursue any other vocation or hold any other office or position. Consequently, the Department of Justice issued Circular No. 37 on June 22, 1971, expressly prohibiting municipal judges from engaging in the private practice of law or giving professional advice. Given that notarial commissions are renewable every two years at most, and the appellant's claim was based on prior authorization, the legal basis for his commission had been removed by legislative action.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the revocation of a municipal judge's notarial commission, holding that Sections 235 and 242 of the Revised Administrative Code explicitly prohibit municipal judges from acting as regular notaries public, allowing them only to act as ex officio notaries public within their territorial jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court noted that subsequent amendments to the Judiciary Act (Republic Act 6031) withdrew the previous authorization for municipal judges to engage in other vocations, including the practice of law, thereby rendering the issue moot and academic.