Notarial Duties: Judges Must Certify Lack of Lawyers and Remit Fees to Avoid Sanctions

The Supreme Court has reminded judges that acting as notaries public ex officio carries specific obligations beyond simply administering oaths. In Gravela v. Villanueva (A.M. No. 02-1414-MTJ, January 28, 2003), the Court held a Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judge liable for failing to comply with the requirements of Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90 when notarizing a private document. The case clarifies when judges may notarize private documents and what they must do to avoid administrative sanctions.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Marcelo Gravela owned a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. V-19344. He authorized one Andrew Manganaan to secure a loan using the land title as collateral. Later, Gravela discovered that a Deed of Sale covering the property had been executed on March 3, 1997, and notarized by respondent Judge Osmundo M. Villanueva of the MCTC of Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat.

Gravela alleged that another person impersonated him and forged his signature on the Deed of Sale. He claimed that the respondent judge failed to exercise due diligence by not ascertaining the identity of the person appearing before him.

Judge Villanueva countered that he made inquiries about the parties' personal circumstances, explained the document's nature in dialects the parties understood, and asked the vendor to produce a residence certificate for identification. He stated that only after satisfying himself of the parties' identities did he affix his signature.

The Issue

The central question was whether Judge Villanueva complied with the requirements of Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90 when he notarized the Deed of Sale as a notary public ex officio.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court found that while the judge was not negligent in ascertaining identity, he failed to meet two specific requirements under Circular No. 1-90.

When Judges May Notarize Private Documents

Under Circular No. 1-90, MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex officio in notarizing documents connected only with the exercise of their official functions. They may not ordinarily undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts, and conveyances that bear no direct relation to their judicial functions.

However, the Court recognized 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. This exception carries two conditions:

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

The Judge's Failures

Although Judge Villanueva claimed there were no lawyers in his territorial jurisdiction, he failed to include the required certification in the notarized documents. He also failed to indicate that the notarial fees he received had been turned over to the Municipal Treasurer of Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat.

The Court emphasized that judges must be aware of and strictly observe circulars governing their conduct. Failure to do so demonstrates lack of diligence in fulfilling duties and keeping abreast with developments in law and jurisprudence.

Practical Takeaways

• Judges notarizing private documents in areas without lawyers or notaries must include a certification in each document attesting to the lack of such professionals in the municipality or circuit.
• Notarial fees collected by judges acting as notaries public ex officio must be turned over to the municipal treasurer—they are never for the judge's personal account.
• Good faith is not a defense to non-compliance with procedural requirements; the Court imposed a P2,000.00 fine despite acknowledging the judge acted in good faith.
• Judges must stay current with administrative circulars and jurisprudence; ignorance of requirements does not excuse non-compliance.
• Public confidence in the judiciary requires judges to avoid even the appearance of impropriety in their extra-judicial activities, including notarial functions.

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