Villareal v. Diongzon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Reimbert C. Villareal executed three (3) Real Estate Mortgages and subsequently a Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale over three parcels of land in favor of Felix Sy. The Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale was notarized by respondent Judge Alejandro R. Diongzon in his capacity as notary public ex officio. Complainant alleged that Judge Diongzon misrepresented that a deed of mortgage and a deed of pacto de retro sale were the same and allowed Rosita Sy, who was not Felix Sy, to sign for the latter without proper authorization. Complainant claimed this led to him facing a qualified theft charge for harvesting coconuts from the land. Procedural History: Complainant filed an administrative complaint against Judge Diongzon. The Office of the Court Administrator referred the complaint to Judge Diongzon for comment. Judge Diongzon denied the charges, asserting complainant's familiarity with the transactions and alleging the complaint was filed out of spite due to the qualified theft case and an unfavorable civil case ruling. The case was referred to the Court of Appeals for investigation. The Court of Appeals found Judge Diongzon guilty of unlawful notarization but dismissed the charge of dishonesty. The Petition: Complainant Reimbert C. Villareal filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Alejandro R. Diongzon for dishonesty and unauthorized notarization of a deed of sale with pacto de retro.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge committed dishonesty by misrepresenting the nature of a deed of mortgage versus a deed of pacto de retro sale. Whether respondent judge engaged in unauthorized notarization of a private document, constituting an unlawful practice of law.
Ruling
The complaint for dishonesty against respondent Judge Alejandro R. Diongzon is DISMISSED. However, for unlawful notarization which constitutes an unlawful practice of law, Judge Diongzon is ordered to pay a FINE of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) and is warned against repetition of similar infractions.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of dishonesty: The Court found no evidence that respondent judge misled the complainant about the true nature of the documents. The complainant himself, along with Rosita Sy, initiated the preparation of the deed of pacto de retro sale and provided its terms and conditions. There was no testimony that complainant Villareal ever asked Judge Diongzon to explain the difference between a deed of mortgage and a deed of pacto de retro sale. Furthermore, complainant had executed three previous real estate mortgages, indicating familiarity with such documents. The Court also noted the significant delay of over ten years in filing the administrative case, which weakened the complainant's credibility and raised questions about his motives. The compromise agreement, where complainant admitted the genuineness and due execution of the deed of pacto de retro sale, further contradicted his claim of being misled. On the charge of unauthorized notarization: The Court found respondent judge guilty of unlawful notarization. A deed of pacto de retro sale is a private document, and notarizing it without it being connected with the judge's official functions constitutes an unlawful practice of law. Circular No. 1-90 clearly delineates that MTC and MCTC judges, acting as notaries public ex officio, are limited to notarizing documents connected with their official duties. They cannot prepare or acknowledge private documents unrelated to their judicial functions. The exception allowing them to act as regular notaries public only applies in municipalities with no lawyers or notaries public, provided a certification is issued, which was not done in this case. The respondent judge also failed to ensure that the parties personally appeared before him and that Rosita Sy had proper authorization to sign for Felix Sy, which is a requirement for notarization. The Court noted that the judge acted laxly and carelessly in this regard, even though the parties had previously dealt with Rosita Sy signing for Felix Sy.
Main Doctrine
A Municipal Trial Court (MTC) or Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judge, acting as an ex officio notary public, may only notarize documents connected with the exercise of their official functions and duties. They cannot undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, such as a deed of pacto de retro sale, that bear no direct relation to their judicial functions, unless specific exceptions under Circular No. 1-90 are met, which include the absence of lawyers or notaries public in the municipality and the issuance of a certification to that effect.