Fuentes v. Buno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Geronimo C. Fuentes filed an administrative case against Judge Romualdo G. Buno, charging him with abuse of discretion, authority, graft, and corruption. Fuentes alleged that the respondent judge prepared and notarized an "Extra-Judicial Partition with Simultaneous Absolute Deed of Sale" concerning an agricultural land owned by his deceased father, Bernardo Fuentes. The sale was executed by his mother, Eulalia Credo Vda. de Fuentes, and his brother, Alejandro Fuentes, who acted on behalf of all heirs, including Geronimo. Geronimo claimed that his Special Power of Attorney (SPA) only authorized Alejandro to mortgage the land, not to partition or sell it. Procedural History: The respondent judge, in his comment, admitted to notarizing the document but explained the circumstances. He stated that he was requested to prepare the document and, upon verification, found the land to be conjugal property. He advised them to secure SPAs from out-of-town children. When Eulalia Vda. de Fuentes and Alejandro Fuentes returned with SPAs from other siblings empowering Alejandro to execute a Deed of Sale, the respondent judge refused to proceed without Geronimo's SPA. However, due to their earnest request and urgent need for money, he prepared the document, including Geronimo's name based on assurances that his SPA was forthcoming. He notarized the document on December 24, 1996. Subsequently, upon learning that Geronimo's SPA only authorized mortgage, he summoned the parties. Eulalia and Alejandro assured responsibility for Geronimo, and the buyer also agreed to reserve Geronimo's share. The respondent judge also asserted his authority to notarize as an ex-officio notary public in a municipality where no notary public was available, presenting certifications to support this claim. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended a fine of P10,000.00 for unauthorized notarization. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution on the administrative complaint against Judge Buno.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed an abuse of discretion and authority, and graft and corruption by preparing and notarizing the "Extra-Judicial Partition with Simultaneous Absolute Deed of Sale" without the proper Special Power of Attorney from all heirs. Whether the respondent judge, acting as a notary public ex officio, complied with the requirements of SC Circular No. 1-90 and the Rules on Notarial Practice.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent judge liable for failing to comply with SC Circular No. 1-90 and the Rules on Notarial Practice. He was ordered to pay a fine of P12,000.00, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of abuse of discretion, authority, graft, and corruption: The Court found that the respondent judge's actions in preparing and notarizing the "Extra-Judicial Partition with Simultaneous Absolute Deed of Sale" were proscribed by SC Circular No. 1-90. This circular explicitly prohibits judges acting as notaries public ex officio from undertaking the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts, and other acts of conveyance that bear no direct relation to the performance of their functions as judges. The document in question, an extra-judicial partition and deed of sale, clearly falls under this prohibition as it did not directly relate to the respondent judge's official duties as a municipal judge. While the respondent judge claimed he acted in good faith due to the urgent need for money and assurances from the other parties, the Court emphasized that good faith is beside the point when there is a failure to strictly observe the requirements of the circular. The Court noted that the respondent judge admitted to preparing the document itself, not merely notarizing it, which goes beyond the scope of his ex-officio notary powers. Furthermore, the respondent judge's failure to obtain the proper SPA from Geronimo Fuentes, despite knowing that his authority was limited to mortgaging the property, contributed to the impropriety of the transaction. On compliance with SC Circular No. 1-90 and the Rules on Notarial Practice: The Court held that even if it were true that no notary public was available in the municipality, as supported by certifications, SC Circular No. 1-90 requires a specific certification in the notarized document attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit. The respondent judge failed to make such a certification in the "Extra-Judicial Partition with Simultaneous Deed of Sale." Additionally, the respondent judge did not provide information on whether any notarial fees were charged and, if so, whether they were turned over to the municipal treasurer, another condition under the circular. The Court also pointed out that the respondent judge notarized the document without the SPA of the attorney-in-fact of the vendors, which violated Rule IV, Section 6(a) of the Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004. This violation led to the legal problem concerning the scope of authority of the attorney-in-fact. By failing to comply with these conditions and violating the rules on notarial practice, the respondent judge failed to conduct himself in a manner that is beyond reproach and suspicion, as enjoined by the Code of Judicial Conduct.
Main Doctrine
Judges acting as notaries public ex officio are prohibited from preparing and acknowledging private documents, contracts, and other acts of conveyance that bear no direct relation to the performance of their official functions as judges, unless specific conditions under SC Circular No. 1-90 are met, including the certification of the lack of a lawyer or notary public in the municipality or circuit.