Judicial Overreach Limits on Notarial Authority of Judges in the Philippines

The Supreme Court has long recognized that Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges may act as notaries public ex officio. However, this power is not unlimited. In Simon v. Judge Aragon (A.M. No. MTJ-05-1576, February 3, 2005), the Court clarified the precise boundaries of this authority and imposed a fine on a judge who overstepped them. The ruling serves as an important reminder that judicial office and notarial practice are distinct functions that must not be conflated.

The Facts of the Case

Judge Alipio M. Aragon, presiding judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of San Pablo and Cabagan, Isabela, was charged with conduct unbecoming of an officer. The complainant, Victorino Simon, alleged that the judge engaged in unauthorized notarial practice by preparing and acknowledging private documents—including deeds of absolute sale and affidavits—that bore no direct relation to his judicial functions.

Simon further claimed that these notarized documents lacked the certification required by Circular No. 1-90, which mandates that judges acting as notaries public ex officio must attest to the absence of any lawyer or notary public in their municipality or circuit.

The Issue

The central question was whether a judge who notarizes private documents without the required certification—and outside the scope of his official judicial functions—may be held administratively liable.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found Judge Aragon guilty of violating Circular No. 1-90 and fined him P7,000.00.

The Court reiterated the rule: MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex officio only in the notarization of documents connected with the exercise of their official functions and duties. They may not undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts, or other acts of conveyance that bear no direct relation to their judicial duties.

Circular No. 1-90, promulgated on February 26, 1990, provides an exception: judges assigned to municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries public may perform any act within the competency of a regular notary public, subject to two conditions:

1. All notarial fees must be for the account of the Government and turned over to the municipal treasurer; and
2. A certification must be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in the municipality or circuit.

While the Court acknowledged that Judge Aragon could not be held liable for documents notarized before the circular's effectivity, the records showed that he notarized seven private documents after February 26, 1990, without the required certification. These included deeds of absolute sale, affidavits of extrajudicial settlement, and waivers of rights—documents clearly unrelated to his judicial functions.

The Court cited Doughlas v. Lopes, Jr. (382 Phil. 8, 2000), where a judge was fined P1,000.00 for a single unauthorized notarization. Since Judge Aragon committed seven such acts, the Court adopted the Office of the Court Administrator's recommendation of a P7,000.00 fine.

Why This Matters

This ruling reinforces the principle that judges must regulate their extra-judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties. The 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges from engaging in the private practice of law. Notarizing private documents—even when no notary public is available—can compromise judicial independence and impartiality.

The decision also clarifies that the exception for municipalities without notaries is narrow and conditional. Judges who avail of this exception must strictly comply with both requirements: turning over fees to the government and certifying the lack of available notaries.

Practical Takeaways

• Judges are not regular notaries. Their notarial authority is limited to documents connected with their official functions.
• The exception is conditional. Even in areas without lawyers or notaries, judges must comply with Circular No. 1-90's twin requirements: government remittance of fees and certification in the document.
• Prospective application. Administrative circulars apply prospectively; judges cannot be penalized for acts before the circular's effectivity.
• Each violation counts. Multiple unauthorized notarizations result in cumulative fines, as demonstrated by the P7,000.00 penalty here.
• Parties should verify. Individuals seeking notarization from a judge should ensure the document contains the required certification and that fees are paid to the municipal treasurer.

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