Quiñones v. Lopez Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A letter-complaint was filed by Mayor Arfran L. Quiñones against Judge Francisco H. Lopez, Jr., alleging conspiracy with Atty. Francisco G. Geronilla and Manuel B. Guiñez in the improvident filing of Guiñez's certificate of candidacy. The complainant averred that Guiñez filed his certificate of candidacy on February 28, 2001, subscribed and sworn to before Judge Lopez on the same date and in the same place (Lupon, Davao Oriental). However, Quiñones stated that Guiñez was confined at St. Luke's Medical Center in Manila from February 20, 2001, to March 9, 2001, making his appearance before the respondent judge impossible. Procedural History: The Office of the Ombudsman referred the charge against Judge Lopez to the Supreme Court, citing Maceda vs. Vasquez, which vests exclusive administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel in the Supreme Court. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) opined that Judge Lopez should be held accountable for notarizing Guiñez's certificate of candidacy in the latter's absence and for notarizing certificates of candidacy for Guiñez and his political party members, which was beyond his authority as an ex officio notary public. The OCA recommended a fine of P5,000.00 and a warning. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case based on the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Francisco H. Lopez, Jr. acted beyond the scope of his authority as a notary public ex officio. Whether respondent Judge is accountable for notarizing a certificate of candidacy without the presence of the affiant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Judge Francisco H. Lopez, Jr. guilty for unauthorized notarization of a private document in violation of Circular No. 1-90. He was ordered to pay a fine of Five Thousand (P5,000.00) Pesos with a stern warning that another infraction would be dealt with most severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of acting beyond the scope of authority as a notary public ex officio: The Court affirmed the findings of the OCA that respondent Judge Lopez acted beyond the scope of his authority as a notary public ex officio. Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90 clearly states that MTC and 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 are prohibited from undertaking the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts, and other acts of conveyance that bear no direct relation to their functions as judges. The records did not indicate that there was no other notary public in Lupon, Davao Oriental, which could have justified the notarization of documents unrelated to the judge's official duties. Furthermore, the judge failed to issue the required certification attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in his municipality or circuit, as stipulated in the same circular for exceptions. On the issue of accountability for notarizing without the presence of the affiant: The Court found that respondent Judge Lopez admittedly notarized the certificate of candidacy without the presence of the affiant, Guiñez. The judge's contention that Guiñez made prior arrangements for the notarization of a pre-signed document was considered a transgression of a notary public's duty. The Court reiterated its pronouncement in Coronado vs. Felongco that notarization is not an empty routine; it converts a private document into a public one, and notaries public must observe the basic requirements with utmost care to maintain public confidence in the integrity of such documents. Failing to have the document signed in his presence violated this fundamental requirement.
Main Doctrine
Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court judges, acting as notaries public ex officio, are empowered to notarize documents only when they are connected with the exercise of their official functions and duties. They may not notarize private documents or acts of conveyance that bear no direct relation to their judicial functions, unless they are assigned to municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries public, in which case they must certify to the lack of such legal practitioners.