Batic v. Galapon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Three administrative complaints were filed against Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court of Dulag, Leyte. - Vicente M. Batic charged the respondent judge with graft and corruption, grave abuse of authority, gross ignorance of the law, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for allegedly issuing a warrant of arrest two days before the complaint was filed in Criminal Case No. 12305 (People of the Philippines v. Vicente Batic and Lualhati Ellert for Grave Coercion). Batic also accused the judge of unauthorized notarial practice for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale on January 25, 1990. - Horst Franz Ellert, husband of Lualhati Ellert, charged the respondent judge with preparing and notarizing a Deed of Sale where Lualhati Ellert was described as "single." Ellert alleged connivance between the judge, Atty. Custodio P. Cañete, and Atty. Cañete's wife to deprive him of conjugal properties. - Ellert also filed a complaint for ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and gross negligence for prematurely issuing a warrant of arrest on March 18, 1997, before the complaint was officially received on March 20, 1997. Procedural History: The respondent judge explained that the warrant of arrest was issued after a preliminary examination and finding of probable cause on March 18, 1997, but due to the late hour, the order and warrant were typed and signed the following day, March 20, 1997, and dated March 18, 1997. The clerk of court stamped the complaint with March 20, 1997, signifying receipt by the clerk of court. Regarding notarization, the judge claimed he did not prepare the document, only acknowledged it, and believed he could act as an ex-officio notary public when no other notary was available. The Court Administrator found the explanation regarding the warrant plausible but found the judge exceeded his authority in notarizing the Deed of Sale. The cases were consolidated and referred to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Tacloban City for investigation. The Executive Judge recommended dismissal of the charges related to the warrant and the notarization, citing good faith and the absence of Circular No. 1-90 at the time of notarization. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) disagreed with the recommendation on notarization, citing prior rulings and the judge's previous infraction, recommending a fine. The Supreme Court referred the cases to the OCA for evaluation. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the administrative complaints against Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of authority, gross ignorance of the law, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service for issuing a warrant of arrest dated March 18, 1997, while the criminal complaint was officially filed on March 20, 1997. Whether the respondent judge engaged in unauthorized practice of law by notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale when there was a notary public in his station.
Ruling
The complaints regarding the issuance of the warrant of arrest are dismissed. The respondent judge is found guilty of unauthorized notarization of a private document and is ordered to pay a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱20,000), with a warning that a repetition of the offense will be punished more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issuance of the warrant of arrest: The Court found that the respondent judge had sufficiently explained the discrepancy in the dates. The preliminary examination and finding of probable cause occurred on March 18, 1997, after the complainants swore to their complaint. Although the warrant of arrest was dated March 18, 1997, it was typed and signed on March 20, 1997, after the judge returned from his leave. The date stamped on the complaint, March 20, 1997, signified the date the clerk of court officially received the records. The Court considered this an innocuous procedural lapse committed in good faith, especially since the complainants resided in a distant barangay, and no party's rights were prejudiced. The Court reiterated the principle that technical rules must give way to substantive rights when their strict application would frustrate justice, citing Roberto Fulgencio, et al. v. National Labor Relations Commission and Raycor Aircontrol Systems, Inc.. On the unauthorized notarization of a private document: The Court held that the respondent judge committed unauthorized practice of law, which is prohibited by Canon 5, Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. While judges are empowered to act as notaries public ex-officio, this authority is limited to notarizing documents connected with the exercise of their official functions and duties, as established in Borre v. Moya and Penera v. Dalocanog. The exception allowing notarization of any private document applies only to municipalities with no lawyers or notaries public, and requires specific certifications. In this case, there was a notary public in Dulag, Leyte, at the time of the notarization, and the Deed of Sale was a private document unrelated to the judge's official duties. The Court noted that this was not the first instance of the respondent judge engaging in unauthorized notarial work, thus warranting a more severe penalty. The judge's belief that he could act as an ex-officio notary public in the absence of a regular notary was not sufficient to exonerate him, as the rule limiting ex-officio notarization to official functions was already established.
Main Doctrine
Municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court judges are empowered to perform the functions of notaries public ex-officio, but such authority is limited to the notarization of only those documents connected with the exercise of their official functions and duties. They may not, as notaries public ex-officio, undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts and other acts of conveyances which bear no direct relation to the performance of their functions as judges. An exception exists for judges in municipalities with no lawyers or notaries public, allowing them to perform any act within the competence of a regular notary public, provided specific conditions are met.