Tupal v. Rojo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Rex M. Tupal filed a complaint against Judge Remegio V. Rojo for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and for gross ignorance of the law. Judge Rojo, presiding over the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 5, Bacolod City, allegedly solemnized marriages without the required marriage license, instead notarizing affidavits of cohabitation on the same day of the marriages. Nine such affidavits, all notarized by Judge Rojo on the day of the respective marriages, were annexed to the complaint. Procedural History: The complaint was filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The OCA conducted an investigation and found that Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 1-90. The OCA recommended a fine of P9,000.00 and a stern warning. The OCA also recommended a fine of P1,000.00 per affidavit notarized without authority. The Petition: The Supreme Court resolved the administrative complaint against Judge Rojo. The primary issue was whether Judge Rojo was guilty of violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct and of gross ignorance of the law for notarizing affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriages he solemnized.
Issue(s)
Whether Judge Rojo is guilty of violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct and of gross ignorance of the law. Whether Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 1-90 by notarizing affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriages he solemnized. Whether Judge Rojo violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice in notarizing the said affidavits.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Judge Rojo guilty of violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct and of gross ignorance of the law. He was found to have violated Circular No. 1-90 and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Consequently, Judge Remegio V. Rojo was suspended from office without salary and other benefits for six (6) months.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross ignorance of the law: The Court ruled that Judge Rojo's repeated violations of Circular No. 1-90 and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which involve basic and elementary legal principles, constitute gross ignorance of the law. His defense of good faith was rejected because it does not apply when the issues are simple and the applicable legal principles are evident. The failure to comply with these basic requirements nine times demonstrated a lack of integrity, a violation of Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct. The Court considered the possibility that Judge Rojo was misled by the practice of other judges but still imposed a sanction of six months suspension, emphasizing that similar breaches will be dealt with strictly. On the issue of violating Circular No. 1-90: The Court held that municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court judges can act as notaries public ex officio only in relation to their official functions and duties. They are prohibited from notarizing private documents that have no direct relation to their functions as judges. Affidavits of cohabitation, even if used for marriage solemnization under Article 34 of the Family Code, are not directly connected with a judge's official function as a solemnizing officer. Furthermore, judges acting as notaries public ex officio must certify the lack of lawyers or notaries public in their territorial jurisdiction, a requirement Judge Rojo failed to meet. His argument that other judges also engaged in this practice does not legitimize the violation, as violations of law are not excused by contrary practice. Therefore, Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 1-90 by notarizing nine affidavits of cohabitation unrelated to his official duties and without the required certification. On the issue of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: The Court found that Judge Rojo violated Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. This rule prohibits a notary public from notarizing a document if the signatory is not personally known to the notary or has not presented competent evidence of identity. Judge Rojo did not state in the affidavits that the parties were personally known to him or that they presented competent evidence of identity. His claim that he personally knew the parties and interviewed them does not equate to being 'personally known' in the context of notarial practice, which requires acquaintance. Thus, he failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for notarization.
Main Doctrine
Municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court judges may act as notaries public ex officio, but only in relation to their official functions and duties. They are prohibited from notarizing private documents that bear no direct relation to their judicial duties, such as affidavits of cohabitation for parties whose marriage they are set to solemnize. Such an act constitutes a violation of Circular No. 1-90 and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and demonstrates gross ignorance of the law, especially when the applicable rules are basic and elementary.