Ellert v. Galapon Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Horst Franz Ellert filed a letter-complaint and an affidavit-complaint against Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr., charging him with grave misconduct, abuse of judicial authority, ignorance of the law, unlawful notarization, perjury, and false testimony, stemming from two cases: DARAB Case No. VIII-169-L-91 and Criminal Case No. 97-07-CR-161. In DARAB Case No. VIII-169-L-91, complainant alleged the respondent judge improperly affixed his signature in the jurat of an "Answer" filed by Marina and Odeth Roca, exceeding his authority as a Municipal Trial Court judge and ex officio notary public, as he is only authorized to administer oaths or sign jurats for documents submitted before his court. In Criminal Case No. 97-07-CR-161, where respondent judge was the complainant against Ellert for Light Threats, complainant alleged the respondent judge gave false testimony and perjured himself by misstating Ellert's residence, falsely claiming to have written a letter to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) that led to the return of an amount in a deed of sale, falsely stating when he first knew Ellert, falsely testifying about a property subject of a civil case before his court, and falsely declaring ignorance of Barangay Tabu, Cabatuan, or any other barangay in Dulag, Leyte. Respondent judge, in his comment, claimed the complaints were harassment due to the criminal case he filed against Ellert, wherein Ellert was convicted. He refuted allegations regarding Ellert's residence, stating he believed it was Barangay Tabu at the time the Information was filed, and clarified his statement about not knowing Barangay Tabu meant he did not know the exact location of Ellert's house, not the barangay itself. Regarding the DBP letter, he asserted he was referring to a land subject of Civil Case No. 230, not the property of Mrs. Carlota Cabacang, and that the bank did return money to Lualhati Ellert as shown in an order. Respondent admitted notarizing the pleading in the DARAB case but believed it was not wrong and did not constitute an abuse of authority or malice, honestly believing that merely administering an oath in a jurat is not actionable. Procedural History: The case originated from a letter-complaint and affidavit-complaint filed by Horst Franz Ellert. The Court Administrator, through Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo T. Ponferrada, recommended that the respondent be ordered to pay a fine of P5,000.00 with a warning. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the findings and recommendations regarding the charges against Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave misconduct, abuse of judicial authority, and ignorance of the law by affixing his signature in the jurat of an "Answer" filed in a DARAB case, which was not pending before his court, constituting unauthorized notarization and unlawful practice of law. Whether the respondent judge committed perjury and gave false testimony in Criminal Case No. 97-07-CR-161, requiring a separate criminal action.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent judge guilty of unauthorized notarization, which constitutes an unlawful practice of law. The Court ordered the respondent to pay a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and warned him that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The charge of false testimony and perjury was advised to be pursued through a separate criminal case.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of unauthorized notarization: The Court held that the act of notarizing a pleading in a case not pending before the respondent judge's sala constitutes an unlawful practice of law. Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges are empowered to perform the functions of notaries public ex officio only in the notarization of documents connected with the exercise of their official functions and duties. 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. This is in line with Circular No. I-90, which delineates the scope of this power. The Court emphasized that judges are prohibited from engaging in the private practice of law under the Code of Judicial Conduct. The exception allowing MTC and MCTC judges to act as notaries public ex officio in municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries public requires specific certifications and that notarial fees be turned over to the government. In this case, there was no showing that such an exception applied in Dulag, Leyte. Therefore, the respondent judge's act of notarizing the "Answer" filed with the DARAB was beyond the scope of his authority as a notary public ex officio. The defense that he saw nothing wrong with his actions was deemed unmeritorious, as he should have known the extent of his authority or verified it from the Office of the Court Administrator. The Court found him guilty of unauthorized notarization, which is an unlawful practice of law. On the charge of False Testimony and Perjury: The Court advised the complainant to institute a criminal case with the proper trial court for these charges. The Court Administrator's office, which deals with administrative functions and judicial discipline of lower court personnel, does not have jurisdiction over criminal cases. Therefore, these allegations were not resolved in this administrative proceeding but were recommended to be pursued in a separate criminal action.
Main Doctrine
A Municipal Trial Court judge acting as an ex officio notary public is empowered to notarize documents connected only with the exercise of their official functions and duties. They may not 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, unless there is a certification attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in the municipality or circuit.