Clerk of Court Notarial Authority: Limits on Ex-Officio Powers in Appeals

The Supreme Court has long recognized that clerks of court serve as notaries public ex-officio. But this authority is not unlimited. In Mathaeus v. Spouses Medequiso (G.R. No. 196651, February 3, 2016), the Court settled a recurring question: may a clerk of court notarize the verification and certification against forum shopping in a petition for review filed with the Court of Appeals? The answer is no—and the consequence of doing so can be fatal to the appeal.

The Case Before the Court

The dispute began in a small claims action before the Tagbilaran City Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC). The MTCC ordered petitioner Uwe Mathaeus to pay respondents P30,000.00 with interest, attorney's fees, and costs. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bohol affirmed on appeal.

When Mathaeus elevated the case to the Court of Appeals via a Petition for Review under Rule 42, he made a critical procedural error. The verification and certification against non-forum shopping attached to his petition were sworn to before the Clerk of Court of the RTC—not before a commissioned notary public. The CA dismissed the petition, holding that the verification was defective, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

The Scope of a Clerk of Court's Notarial Authority

Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code authorizes clerks of court to act as notaries public ex-officio. However, the Supreme Court has consistently limited this power: clerks of court may notarize documents or administer oaths only when the matter relates to the exercise of their official functions.

In Mathaeus, the Court rejected the argument that a petition for review is merely a continuation of the trial court proceedings and therefore falls within the clerk's official functions. The Court reasoned that the workload of a clerk of court is already heavy, and adding routine notarization of pleadings would distract from essential court work. Such responsibilities, the Court said, "can very well be relegated to commissioned notaries public."

The Court also warned of practical dangers: allowing clerks to notarize pleadings in cases pending before their own courts could invite abuse. The decision cited prior rulings, including Cruz v. Atty. Centron (484 Phil. 671) and Exec. Judge Astorga v. Solas (413 Phil. 558), which established the same limitation.

Verification and Certification: Two Different Standards

The case also clarified an important distinction between two commonly confused requirements:

• Verification is a statement under oath that the allegations in a pleading are true and correct.
• Certification against non-forum shopping is a promise that the party has not filed the same or similar cases in other courts.

Under Section 1, Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a petition for review must be verified and must include a certification against forum shopping. Section 3 of the same Rule makes failure to comply a ground for dismissal.

The Court noted that a defective certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by later correction, unless there are special circumstances or compelling reasons. In Mathaeus, the Court found none—especially since the petitioner had already committed a series of procedural lapses, including filing an unverified Answer at the MTCC level and failing to furnish copies to the opposing party.

Practical Takeaways

• Verify before a commissioned notary public. For pleadings filed in an appellate court, have the verification and certification against forum shopping notarized by a duly commissioned notary—not by a clerk of court.
• Know the limitation on ex-officio notaries. A clerk of court's notarial power extends only to matters related to official functions. Routine notarization of appeal pleadings falls outside this scope.
• Treat the certification against forum shopping seriously. Unlike verification, a defective certification is generally not curable by amendment. Dismissal is a real risk.
• Procedural compliance matters at every level. A party who commits repeated procedural lapses cannot expect the courts to relax the rules in their favor.
• When in doubt, consult counsel. The rules on verification and forum shopping are technical and strictly enforced. Professional guidance can prevent costly dismissals.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.