Cinco Tabao v. Asis
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Azucena Cinco Tabao and Jesusa Cinco Acosta filed a complaint against Judge Enrique C. Asis for gross irregularity, violation of Supreme Court circulars, and abuse of authority. They alleged that while acting as MTCC Judge, respondent notarized a Special Power of Attorney purportedly executed by their deceased aunt, Mariquita M. Cinco-Jocson, enabling another aunt, Cirila Cinco-Caintic, to sell a lot registered in her name. Procedural History: Respondent Judge admitted notarizing the Special Power of Attorney, claiming it was an act of "christian charity" to help defray Mariquita M. Cinco-Jocson's medical expenses, and stated he received no payment. However, an examination revealed that the documents were already notarized by Notary Public Flaviano V. Caintic on June 3, 1992, while respondent notarized them on July 23, 1992. Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo P. Abesamis recommended that respondent Judge be fined an amount equivalent to his one-month salary. The Petition: Complainants charge that while acting as MTCC Judge of Tacloban City, respondent notarized a Special Power of Attorney purportedly executed in behalf of their aunt Mariquita M. Cinco-Jocson, now deceased. The Special Power of Attorney enabled another aunt, Cirila Cinco-Caintic, sister of Mariquita M. Cinco-Jocson, to sell Lot 19-D situated in Quezon City and registered in her name under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 21184 for P1,000,000.00, who at the time of the sale was confined at St. Paul’s Hospital, Tacloban City. The complainants charged Judge Asis with gross irregularity in the performance of his duties, violation of Supreme Court circulars and regulations, and abuse of authority and conduct unbecoming of a judge.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Enrique C. Asis committed gross irregularity, violated Supreme Court circulars, and abused his authority by notarizing private documents. Whether a municipal judge can notarize private documents unrelated to their official functions.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Judge Enrique C. Asis administratively liable and imposed a fine of P10,000.00 with a warning. The Court held that municipal judges cannot notarize private documents unrelated to their official functions, except under specific circumstances not present in this case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether respondent Judge committed gross irregularity, violated Supreme Court circulars, and abused his authority: The Court found that respondent Judge Enrique C. Asis was administratively liable. The complainants alleged that the respondent, while acting as an MTCC Judge, notarized a Special Power of Attorney purportedly executed by their deceased aunt, Mariquita M. Cinco-Jocson. This document allowed another aunt, Cirila Cinco-Caintic, to sell a lot. The respondent admitted to notarizing the document, citing "christian charity" and "brotherly love" as his motivations, stating the proceeds were for the medical expenses of Mariquita M. Cinco-Jocson and that he received no payment. However, the Court noted that the documents were already notarized by another notary public, Flaviano V. Caintic, on June 3, 1992, and then again by the respondent on July 23, 1992. This duplication of notarization for private documents, especially after they had already been validly notarized, raised serious questions about the respondent's actions and motives. The Court found no justification for the respondent's conduct, which defied logic and reason, leading to the recommendation for a fine. On the issue of whether a municipal judge can notarize private documents unrelated to their official functions: The Court unequivocally ruled that municipal judges may not engage in notarial work except as notaries public ex-officio, and only for documents connected with the exercise of their official functions. This prohibition is rooted in Section 35 of Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court and Canon 5, Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibit judges from engaging in private practice or giving professional advice. The Court emphasized that the duties of an attorney-at-law are incompatible with the high functions of a judge, and judges must devote their full time to their judicial duties to prevent special favors and ensure impartiality. Furthermore, Section N, Chapter VIII of the Manual for Clerks of Court provides that officers authorized to administer oaths, with exceptions like notaries public, municipal judges, and clerks of court, are not obliged to administer oaths or execute certificates save in matters of official business. Municipal judges can only notarize private documents if they are assigned to far-flung municipalities with no available lawyers or notaries public, and even then, specific conditions regarding the remittance of fees to the government and certification of the lack of local legal practitioners must be met. The City of Tacloban, where the respondent was assigned, abounds with notaries public, thus disqualifying the respondent from claiming this exception. The respondent's act of notarizing private documents unrelated to his official functions constituted a violation of these rules.
Main Doctrine
Municipal judges may not engage in notarial work except as notaries public ex-officio, and only for documents connected with the exercise of their official functions. They cannot notarize private documents unrelated to their official duties, unless they are assigned to far-flung municipalities lacking lawyers or notaries public, and even then, with specific conditions regarding fees and certification.