Simon v. Aragon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Victorino Simon filed a complaint against Judge Alipio M. Aragon, alleging unauthorized notarial practice through the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents unrelated to his judicial functions. The complainant also averred that the notarized documents lacked the required certification attesting to the absence of lawyers or notaries public in San Pablo, Isabela, contrary to Circular No. 1-90. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Cabagan, Isabela, for investigation. The investigating judge found that respondent judge violated Circular No. 1-90 but recommended prospective application of the circular. The Office of the Court Administrator adopted the investigating judge's recommendation. The Petition: The complainant charged the respondent judge with conduct unbecoming of an officer for engaging in unauthorized notarial practice.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge engaged in unauthorized notarial practice and violated Circular No. 1-90.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Judge Alipio M. Aragon guilty of engaging in unauthorized notarial work and violating Circular No. 1-90. He was fined P7,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of unauthorized notarial practice and violation of Circular No. 1-90: The Court reiterated that Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and 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 are prohibited from preparing and acknowledging private documents that bear no direct relation to their judicial functions, as this constitutes engaging in the private practice of law, which is proscribed by the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court further clarified that for MTC and MCTC judges assigned to municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries public to validly perform any act of a regular notary public, two requisites must concur: (1) all notarial fees charged must be for the account of the Government and turned over to the municipal treasurer; and (2) a certification must be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit. In this case, the respondent judge notarized seven (7) private documents after February 26, 1990, without the required certification, thereby acting beyond the scope of his authority as notary public ex officio and violating Circular No. 1-90. The Court noted that while the respondent judge should not be held liable for acts prior to the effectivity of Circular No. 1-90, his actions after its promulgation constituted a violation.
Main Doctrine
Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court 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 undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents unrelated to their judicial functions. When acting as such in municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries public, they must secure a certification attesting to the lack of such professionals and all notarial fees must be for the account of the Government.