Cruz v. Centron
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Arnel S. Cruz filed a letter-complaint against Atty. Luningning Y. Centron, Clerk of Court VI, RTC-OCC, Calapan City, for gross misconduct. Complainant alleged that respondent assisted in the consummation of an illegal sale of a parcel of land by preparing and notarizing documents of sale, despite the property being subject to reconstitution and settlement among heirs. Complainant further alleged that respondent was involved in the disappearance of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 2186 and refused to surrender it. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Respondent denied direct involvement in the sale, admitting only to notarizing the deed of sale upon request because the parties could not afford the fee of another notary public. She also denied involvement in the loss of the title. The OCA found the complaint without basis but noted that respondent violated provisions of the Revised Administrative Code and the Manual for Clerks of Court by notarizing a deed of conveyance unrelated to her official functions. The OCA recommended a fine of P2,000.00 and a stern warning. The Court required the parties to manifest their willingness to submit the case for resolution. Complainant complied, but respondent failed to do so initially, later explaining it was due to heavy workload and expressing her desire to submit the case on the pleadings. The Petition: The complainant prayed that respondent be disbarred and removed from office.
Issue(s)
Whether the complainant presented clear and preponderant evidence to show respondent's direct and instrumental participation in the preparation of documents and the subsequent sale of the subject parcel of land. Whether respondent Atty. Luningning Y. Centron is guilty of gross misconduct for notarizing a deed of sale unrelated to her official functions as Clerk of Court.
Ruling
The Court found that the complainant failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to prove respondent's direct and instrumental participation in the sale of the land. However, the Court found respondent guilty of violating provisions of the Revised Administrative Code and the Manual for Clerks of Court by notarizing a deed of conveyance not connected with her official functions, constituting an abuse of authority. Accordingly, respondent was ordered to pay a fine of P2,000.00 and was sternly warned against repetition of similar acts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of direct participation in the sale: The Court held that the complainant failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to establish respondent's direct and instrumental participation in the preparation of the documents and the subsequent sale of the subject parcel of land. Aside from the deed of sale notarized by the respondent, no competent evidence was presented to directly link her to the sale itself. While it might be logically assumed that the respondent prepared the deed since she notarized it, such a supposition lacks evidentiary weight without supporting evidence. Furthermore, the allegation that respondent influenced the buyers was contradicted by the sworn affidavit of one of the buyers, Adelfa Manes, who attested that the respondent did not convince or influence them. No competent evidence also proved respondent's responsibility for the loss of the owner's duplicate copy of OCT No. 2186. On the issue of abuse of authority for notarization: The Court found respondent guilty of violating Section 41 (as amended by Section 2 of R. A. No. 6733) and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code, in relation to Sections G, M, and N, Chapter VIII of the Manual for Clerks of Court. These provisions establish that Clerks of Court are ex-officio notaries public and can only notarize documents or administer oaths when the matter is related to their official functions. The Court reiterated the ruling in Astorga vs. Solas that clerks of court should not, in their ex-officio capacity, take part in the execution of private documents bearing no relation to their official duties. Notarizing the subject deed of sale was not within respondent's competence as it was not part of her official function and duty, thus constituting an abuse of authority. Considering it was respondent's first offense and only one document was notarized, the recommended fine of P2,000.00 by the OCA was deemed commensurate to the offense.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk of Court, acting as an ex-officio notary public, is authorized to notarize documents or administer oaths only when the matter is related to the exercise of their official functions. Notarizing private documents unrelated to official duties constitutes an abuse of authority.