Office of the Court Administrator v. Saguyod
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) adopted the Audit Team's Report recommending that respondent Branch Clerk of Court Paulino I. Saguyod (BCC Saguyod) explain why he should not be held administratively liable for notarizing several documents submitted to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67, without observing the provisions of A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (Re: 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice). Procedural History: The Audit Team examined cases decided by former Judge Liberty O. Castaneda and discovered that BCC Saguyod had been notarizing numerous documents filed before the RTC without properly observing the Court's guidelines. Specifically, BCC Saguyod violated Section (f) of the Resolution dated August 15, 2006 in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC by notarizing documents without a certification that no notaries public were available within the Municipality of Paniqui, Tarlac. BCC Saguyod explained that he acted in good faith, without monetary consideration, and believed he was performing an important function vital to the administration of justice, citing Section 41 of the Administrative Code of 1987. He apologized and stated he had refrained from notarizing further documents after being called to attention. The Petition: The OCA recommended that BCC Saguyod be found guilty of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties and be suspended for one (1) year, with a warning against repetition. The OCA found BCC Saguyod's defenses unsubstantiated, noting that other documents were notarized by notaries public based in Paniqui, Tarlac, and that BCC Saguyod notarized incomplete documents. The OCA recommended suspension due to the repeated violations and the notarization of incomplete documents.
Issue(s)
Whether BCC Saguyod should be held administratively liable for notarizing various documents submitted to the RTC without complying with A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC. Whether BCC Saguyod's defenses of good faith, lack of monetary consideration, and unavailability of notaries public are tenable.
Ruling
The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the OCA, finding BCC Saguyod guilty of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties and imposing the penalty of suspension from service for one (1) year, with a stern warning that repetition of the offense shall warrant dismissal from service.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether BCC Saguyod should be held administratively liable for notarizing various documents submitted to the RTC without complying with A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC: The Court ruled in the affirmative. BCC Saguyod readily admitted to notarizing hundreds, if not thousands, of various documents submitted before the RTC where he was stationed. As a Clerk of Court, his acts of notarization should comply with Section (f) of the Resolution dated August 15, 2006 in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC. This provision authorizes Clerks of Court to notarize private documents, subject to the conditions that notarial fees are for the account of the Judiciary and that they certify in the notarized documents that there are no available notaries public within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court where they are stationed. BCC Saguyod's failure to comply with the certification requirement constitutes a violation of this rule. On whether BCC Saguyod's defenses of good faith, lack of monetary consideration, and unavailability of notaries public are tenable: The Court found these defenses to be untenable. BCC Saguyod's claim that there were no notaries public available within the Municipality of Paniqui, Tarlac, was belied by the fact that other documents filed before the RTC were duly subscribed by notaries public based in the same municipality. Furthermore, BCC Saguyod could not feign good faith in performing the acts of notarization, as he repeatedly did so even on documents that were not completely accomplished by the concerned parties. His defense of acting in good faith and without monetary consideration does not absolve him from the violation of the procedural rules governing notarization, especially given the repeated nature of the offense and the notarization of incomplete documents. The OCA correctly pointed out that these defenses do not deserve credence because his act of notarizing without compliance with the Court's resolution directly makes him liable thereunder.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk of Court is administratively liable for inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties for notarizing documents without complying with the conditions set forth in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, specifically the requirement to certify that there are no available notaries public within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court.