The Supreme Court has ruled that municipal trial court judges are prohibited from notarizing affidavits of cohabitation for couples whose marriages they are about to officiate. This decision underscores that a judge’s role as a solemnizing officer and notary public ex officio has limitations. By clarifying these boundaries, the court aims to prevent conflicts of interest and uphold the integrity of the marriage process.

When Package Marriages Lead to Ethical Collisions

In Rex M. Tupal v. Judge Remegio V. Rojo, Rex Tupal filed a complaint against Judge Remegio V. Rojo, alleging violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct and gross ignorance of the law. The central issue revolved around Judge Rojo’s practice of solemnizing marriages without the necessary marriage licenses, opting instead to notarize affidavits of cohabitation for the couples on their wedding day. This practice, known as “package marriages,” raised questions about the judge’s impartiality and adherence to legal requirements.

The complainant, Rex Tupal, supported his allegations with nine affidavits of cohabitation, all notarized by Judge Rojo on the very day the couples were married. Tupal argued that by notarizing these affidavits, Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 1-90, which allows municipal trial court judges to act as notaries public ex officio only for documents connected to their official duties. Tupal contended that affidavits of cohabitation do not fall under this category. Moreover, Tupal asserted that Judge Rojo failed to comply with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by not affixing his judicial seal and not requiring the parties to present identification, thus demonstrating gross ignorance of the law.

In response, Judge Rojo defended his actions by arguing that notarizing affidavits of cohabitation was within his duties as a judge. He claimed the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the Judiciary did not explicitly prohibit this practice. He also stated that as a judge, he was not required to affix a notarial seal. Furthermore, he argued that since he personally interviewed the parties, he knew their identities, making additional identification unnecessary. Judge Rojo also pointed out that other judges engaged in similar practices and pleaded not to be singled out.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Judge Rojo in violation of Circular No. 1-90. The OCA determined that affidavits of cohabitation were not connected to a judge’s official duties and recommended a fine of P9,000.00, with a stern warning against future offenses. The Supreme Court agreed with the OCA’s findings, holding Judge Rojo guilty of violating the New Code of Judicial Conduct and gross ignorance of the law. The Court emphasized that while municipal trial court judges can act as notaries public ex officio, this power is limited to documents connected to their official functions. Circular No. 1-90 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 x x x. 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. The 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct not only enjoins judges to regulate their extra-judicial activities in order to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties, but also prohibits them from engaging in the private practice of law (Canon 5 and Rule 5.07).

The Supreme Court clarified that a judge’s duty as a solemnizing officer is to examine the affidavit of cohabitation to ensure the parties have lived together for at least five years without any legal impediments. This examination is a separate function from notarizing the document. The Court reasoned that if the judge notarizes the affidavit, objectivity in reviewing the document is compromised. This separation ensures a more impartial assessment of the parties’ qualifications for marriage.

The Court dismissed Judge Rojo’s argument that the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage did not expressly prohibit notarizing affidavits of cohabitation. It stated that accepting this argument would render the solemnizing officer’s duties to examine the affidavit and issue a sworn statement redundant. The Family Code and the Guidelines assume that the notary and the solemnizing officer are distinct individuals. Additionally, the Court addressed Judge Rojo’s claim that since a marriage license is a public document, the affidavit of cohabitation should also be considered public. The Court clarified that an affidavit of cohabitation remains a private document until it is notarized, at which point it becomes admissible in court without further proof of authenticity.

Furthermore, Judge Rojo’s defense that he was not competing with private lawyers was deemed irrelevant. The Court clarified that Circular No. 1-90 applies whenever a judge notarizes a document not connected with their official functions, regardless of competition with private lawyers. The Supreme Court also found Judge Rojo in violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Rule IV, Section 2(b) states that a notary public cannot notarize a document if the signatory is not personally known or identified through competent evidence.

The Supreme Court rejected Judge Rojo’s argument that personally interviewing the parties made them “personally known” to him. The Court stated that personally knowing the parties requires more than a brief interview; it implies a level of acquaintance. For these multiple violations of Circular No. 1-90 and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the Supreme Court found Judge Rojo guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Court acknowledged Judge Rojo’s claim of good faith but emphasized that good faith applies only within tolerable judgment parameters. Since the legal principles involved were basic and evident, his actions could not be excused.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court underscored that judges must maintain conduct above reproach, both in reality and perception. Violating basic legal principles undermines integrity. While the Court acknowledged that Judge Rojo may have been misled by common practices among other judges, it emphasized that violations of law are not excused by contrary practices. Given the seriousness of the charges, the Court imposed a penalty of suspension from office without salary and other benefits for six months.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Judge Rojo violated judicial ethics and rules by notarizing affidavits of cohabitation for couples whose marriages he solemnized, particularly regarding the scope of a judge’s authority as a notary public ex officio.
What is an affidavit of cohabitation?	An affidavit of cohabitation is a legal document stating that a couple has lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and has no legal impediment to marry, allowing them to marry without a marriage license.
What is a notary public ex officio?	A notary public ex officio refers to a government official, such as a judge, who is authorized to perform notarial acts by virtue of their office, but this authority is limited to acts connected with their official functions.
What does Circular No. 1-90 say about judges acting as notaries?	Circular No. 1-90 allows municipal trial court judges to act as notaries public ex officio only for documents connected with their official functions and duties, prohibiting them from notarizing private documents unrelated to their judicial role.
Why can’t a judge notarize an affidavit of cohabitation for a marriage they are solemnizing?	The court reasoned that a judge cannot objectively examine a document they themselves notarized. This separation ensures a more impartial assessment of the parties’ qualifications for marriage and prevent conflicts of interest.
What are the requirements for notarizing a document under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice?	Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public must ensure the signatory is either personally known to them or presents competent evidence of identity, such as a valid ID.
What was the penalty imposed on Judge Rojo?	Judge Rojo was suspended from office without salary and other benefits for six months due to his violations of judicial ethics and rules.
What is the significance of this case?	This case clarifies the limitations on a judge’s authority as a notary public ex officio and reinforces the importance of adhering to ethical standards and legal requirements in the solemnization of marriages.

This ruling serves as a crucial reminder for judges to adhere strictly to the bounds of their authority and to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of preventing potential conflicts of interest and ensuring impartiality in the solemnization of marriages, thereby safeguarding the sanctity of the institution of marriage.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: REX M. TUPAL, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO, BRANCH 5, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), BACOLOD CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, RESPONDENT., A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842, February 24, 2014