Doughlas v. Lopez, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Venus P. Doughlas filed a sworn complaint against Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Francisco H. Lopez, Jr., alleging irregularity in the notarization of an "Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate with Special Power of Attorney." Complainant alleged that her deceased husband's land was offered for sale under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program without the heirs' knowledge and consent, facilitated by the said document, which she claimed bore forged signatures of the heirs. She presented an affidavit from her mother, authenticated by a Philippine Consul in Los Angeles, stating she did not return to the Philippines to sign the document, and an affidavit from Perla Bonhoc stating the document bore forged signatures. Procedural History: Respondent judge admitted notarizing the document on an accommodation basis, believing it was a government transaction, and claimed no participation in its preparation. The case was referred to the Executive Judge for investigation. The complainant repeatedly failed to appear for hearings, leading the Investigating Judge to initially recommend admonishment. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further investigation. Despite notices, the complainant and her representative failed to appear again. The Investigating Judge recommended dismissal due to the complainant's failure to substantiate allegations and the presumption of regularity in the respondent's official duty. The Office of the Court Administrator agreed with the dismissal of the forgery charge but found the respondent guilty of unauthorized notarization, recommending a fine. The Petition: This case originated from a sworn complaint filed by Venus P. Doughlas against Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Francisco H. Lopez, Jr. alleging an irregularity in the notarization of a private document entitled "Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate with Special Power of Attorney." The complainant, an heir of the late Bienvenido Paquingan, discovered that a parcel of agricultural land owned by her deceased husband was offered for sale under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. She claimed this was facilitated without the heirs' knowledge and consent via the questioned document, which she asserted bore forged signatures of the heirs. To support her claims, she submitted an affidavit from her mother, authenticated by a Philippine Consul in Los Angeles, stating she did not return to the Philippines to sign the document on the date indicated, and an affidavit from Perla Bonhoc alleging forged signatures.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed forgery. Whether the respondent judge committed unauthorized notarization of a private document.
Ruling
The complaint for forgery is DISMISSED. However, respondent judge FRANCISCO H. LOPEZ, JR. is ordered to pay a fine of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) for unauthorized notarization of a private document. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forgery: The Court dismissed the complaint for forgery. The complainant failed to substantiate her allegations of forgery with clear and convincing evidence. Her repeated failure to appear and present evidence created a presumption that she deliberately failed to prosecute her case. The Investigating Judge noted that a mere comparison of signatures in the questioned documents and other submitted documents did not conclusively show forgery, and in the absence of competent evidence, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty in favor of the respondent prevailed. Furthermore, any claim of deprivation of share could be ventilated in an appropriate forum, and the records did not show that the respondent facilitated such deprivation. On the issue of unauthorized notarization: The Court found the respondent judge guilty of unauthorized notarization of a private document. It is well-settled that municipal judges, acting as notaries public ex officio, may only notarize documents connected with the exercise of their official functions. They are prohibited from notarizing private documents unrelated to their duties. The Court noted that there were other lawyers and notaries public in the municipality of Lupon-Banaybanay, as evidenced by other documents notarized by them. Therefore, the respondent judge had no right to notarize the "Extra Judicial Settlement with Special Power of Attorney," a private document. Even if there were no lawyers or notaries public, the judge should have certified to the lack thereof in the notarized document and remitted all notarial fees to the government, which he failed to do.
Main Doctrine
Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges may act as notaries public ex officio only in the notarization of documents connected with the exercise of their official functions and duties. They may not notarize private documents unrelated to their judicial functions, unless there is a certification attesting to the lack of lawyers or notaries public in their municipality or circuit, and all notarial fees are remitted to the government.