Understanding the Limits of Notarial Authority for Philippine Judges

TLDR: Philippine judges, particularly those in Municipal Trial Courts (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTC), have limited authority to act as notaries public *ex officio*. This case clarifies that notarizing private documents unrelated to their official duties constitutes unauthorized practice of law and is subject to disciplinary action, even for judges with long and otherwise unblemished service records.

A.M. No. RTJ-99-1520, November 22, 2000

INTRODUCTION

Imagine needing to notarize a crucial document, and turning to a respected judge for assistance, only to later discover that the notarization was invalid, potentially jeopardizing your legal standing. This scenario highlights the importance of understanding the scope of a judge’s authority when acting as a notary public in the Philippines. The Supreme Court case of Villarreal v. Judge Diongzon provides critical insights into these limitations, reminding us that even individuals holding esteemed positions must operate within clearly defined legal boundaries.

In this case, Reimbert C. Villareal filed an administrative complaint against Judge Alejandro R. Diongzon for notarizing a Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale, a private document, when Judge Diongzon was then serving as a Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge. The central legal question was whether Judge Diongzon, in notarizing this private document, exceeded his authority as a notary public *ex officio* and engaged in unauthorized practice of law.

LEGAL CONTEXT: JUDGES AS NOTARIES PUBLIC EX OFFICIO

Philippine law grants certain judges the authority to act as notaries public *ex officio*, meaning by virtue of their office. This power is primarily derived from Section 76 of Republic Act No. 296, also known as the Judiciary Act of 1948, as amended, and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code. These provisions empower Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges to perform notarial functions.

However, this authority is not without limitations. Crucially, Circular No. I-90, issued by the Supreme Court, clarifies and restricts the scope of this power. Circular No. I-90 explicitly states:

“MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex officio in the notarization of documents connected only with the exercise of their official functions and duties [Borre v. Mayo, Adm. Matter No. 1765-CFI, October 17, 1980, 100 SCRA 314; Penera v. Dalocanog, Adm. Matter No. 2113-MJ, April 22, 1981, 104 SCRA 193.] 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…”

This circular emphasizes that the notarial authority of MTC and MCTC judges is primarily intended to facilitate their judicial duties and not to engage in general notarial practice. The rationale behind this limitation is to prevent potential conflicts of interest and to ensure that judges focus on their primary role of dispensing justice. Furthermore, the 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct reinforces this by enjoining judges to regulate extra-judicial activities and prohibiting the private practice of law.

An exception exists for municipalities lacking lawyers or notaries public. In such cases, MTC and MCTC judges may perform general notarial acts, provided that all fees are remitted to the government and a certification of the absence of lawyers or notaries is included in the document. This exception is meant to address the practical needs of communities with limited access to legal services.

CASE BREAKDOWN: VILLARREAL VS. JUDGE DIONGZON

The narrative of Villarreal v. Judge Diongzon unfolds with Reimbert Villareal’s complaint against Judge Diongzon. Villareal alleged that Judge Diongzon, while serving as an MCTC judge, notarized a Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale for Villareal’s property in favor of Felix Sy. Villareal claimed that Judge Diongzon misrepresented the nature of the document and improperly allowed Rosita Sy to sign for Felix Sy.

The sequence of events leading to the complaint is as follows:

1. Mortgages: Villareal mortgaged his land to Felix Sy on three occasions between 1984 and 1987.
2. Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale (1988): Villareal and his wife executed a Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale for the same land in favor of Felix Sy, notarized by Judge Diongzon in his *ex officio* capacity. Rosita Sy signed for Felix Sy.
3. Qualified Theft Case (1995): Villareal harvested coconuts from the land, leading to a qualified theft charge filed by Rosita Sy. This case was later settled.
4. Civil Case for Annulment (1995): Villareal filed a case to annul the Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale, which was dismissed due to procedural issues.
5. Administrative Complaint (1999): Villareal filed the administrative complaint against Judge Diongzon, alleging dishonesty and unauthorized notarization.

Judge Diongzon defended himself by stating that he acted in good faith, believing he was authorized to notarize the document. He claimed Villareal and Rosita Sy provided the terms, and he merely notarized it at their request. He also pointed to the long delay in filing the complaint, suggesting malicious intent.

The case was referred to the Court of Appeals for investigation. The Court of Appeals investigator found that Judge Diongzon did notarize the private document. The Supreme Court, in its decision, affirmed this finding. The Court emphasized the limitations outlined in Circular No. I-90, stating:

“Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts, or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, may perform their functions as notaries public ex-officio only in the notarization of documents connected with the exercise of their official functions. They may not undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents such as a deed of pacto de retro sale.”

The Supreme Court acknowledged Judge Diongzon’s long and previously unblemished service record and his admission of error, which mitigated the penalty. However, it underscored that ignorance of the circular was not an excuse, and judges are expected to be aware of and comply with administrative directives. Ultimately, the Court found Judge Diongzon guilty of unlawful notarization, constituting unauthorized practice of law, but dismissed the dishonesty charge. He was fined P1,000.00 and warned against future similar infractions.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: LIMITS OF JUDICIAL NOTARIAL POWERS

Villarreal v. Judge Diongzon serves as a clear reminder to judges, particularly those in the first-level courts, about the boundaries of their authority as notaries public *ex officio*. It reinforces that this notarial power is not a blanket authorization to notarize any document. Judges must restrict their notarial acts to documents directly related to their official functions.

For the public, this case highlights the importance of verifying the authority of a notary public. While judges hold positions of public trust, their notarial powers are specifically circumscribed. Individuals seeking notarial services for private documents should ideally seek the services of a regular notary public, typically a lawyer authorized to perform notarial acts without the limitations imposed on judges acting *ex officio*.

Key Lessons:

• Judges’ Notarial Authority is Limited: MTC and MCTC judges can only notarize documents connected to their official duties, as per Circular No. I-90.
• Private Documents are Outside Scope: Notarizing private documents like Deeds of Sale, Contracts, and other conveyances is generally beyond their *ex officio* authority.
• Unauthorized Notarization is Unlawful Practice: Exceeding notarial authority can be considered unauthorized practice of law, leading to administrative sanctions.
• Good Faith is Mitigating but Not Excusatory: While good faith and long service may mitigate penalties, they do not excuse unauthorized acts.
• Verify Notary’s Authority: The public should be aware of the different types of notaries and ensure the notary is authorized for the specific document.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

Q1: Can a Municipal Trial Court Judge notarize my real estate sale contract?

A1: Generally, no. Unless you are in a remote municipality with no lawyers or notaries public (and the judge certifies this), an MTC judge acting *ex officio* should not notarize a private real estate sale contract as it’s not directly related to their judicial functions. It’s best to seek a regular notary public.

Q2: What is a notary public *ex officio*?

A2: It means “by virtue of office.” Certain public officials, like MTC and MCTC judges, are authorized to perform notarial acts because of their position, but their authority is limited compared to regular notaries public.

Q3: What happens if a judge improperly notarizes a document?

A3: As seen in Villarreal v. Judge Diongzon, the judge can face administrative sanctions from the Supreme Court, ranging from fines to suspension or even dismissal, depending on the severity and circumstances.

Q4: Are there exceptions to the rule limiting judges’ notarial powers?

A4: Yes, Circular No. I-90 provides an exception for municipalities or circuits lacking lawyers or notaries public. In such areas, MTC/MCTC judges can perform general notarial acts, provided they remit fees to the treasury and certify the absence of lawyers/notaries in the document.

Q5: How can I find a regular notary public in the Philippines?

A5: You can search online directories of lawyers, or contact the local chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Law firms also typically offer notarial services.

ASG Law specializes in litigation and administrative law, including cases involving judicial ethics and responsibilities. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.