Notarial Duty and Administrative Liability: Upholding Integrity in Court Services

The Supreme Court has long reminded court personnel that public office is a public trust. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Paulino I. Saguyod (A.M. No. P-17-3705, February 6, 2018), the Court underscored this principle by disciplining a Branch Clerk of Court who notarized hundreds of documents without complying with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The case clarifies the limits of a clerk of court's notarial authority and the serious consequences of ignoring them.

The Facts of the Case

Respondent Paulino I. Saguyod was the Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 67, in Paniqui, Tarlac. During an audit of 1,194 cases handled by the branch, the audit team discovered that Saguyod had been notarizing numerous documents filed before the court. The problem: he did so without the certification required by the Supreme Court.

Under the resolution in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice), a clerk of court may notarize documents only if, among other conditions, the notarized documents contain a certification that there are no available notaries public within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. Saguyod's notarized documents lacked this certification.

The Issue Before the Court

The sole issue was whether Saguyod should be held administratively liable for notarizing documents without complying with the rules.

Saguyod's Defenses

In his defense, Saguyod claimed he acted in good faith and without receiving any monetary consideration. He cited the Administrative Code of 1987, which authorizes clerks of court to administer oaths. He said he believed he was performing an important function vital to the prompt administration of justice. He also claimed there were no available notaries public in Paniqui, Tarlac, and apologized for his non-compliance.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court rejected these defenses and found Saguyod guilty of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties.

The Court explained that the authorization for clerks of court to notarize is not absolute. It is subject to two conditions under the resolution: (1) all notarial fees must be for the account of the Judiciary, and (2) the clerk must certify in the notarized document that there are no notaries public within the court's territorial jurisdiction.

Saguyod's claim that no notaries were available in the municipality was disproved by the fact that other documents filed before the same court were duly notarized by notaries public based in Paniqui. His claim of good faith also failed because he repeatedly notarized documents that were incomplete or lacking in material details.

The Court stressed that inefficiency involves specific acts or omissions that damage the employer, and is akin to neglect of duty — a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.

The Penalty

Under the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties is a grave offense. For a first offense, the penalty is suspension from six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year. Since this was Saguyod's first offense, the Court imposed the maximum penalty of one (1) year suspension, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense would result in dismissal from service.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarial authority is limited. Clerks of court may notarize documents only under the conditions set by A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC. The authority is not the same as that of a regular notary public.
• The certification is mandatory. A clerk of court must certify in the notarized document that there are no available notaries public within the court's territorial jurisdiction. Omitting this certification is a violation.
• Good faith is not a defense. Claiming good faith or lack of monetary consideration will not excuse repeated violations, especially when the clerk notarized incomplete documents.
• Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. Court personnel are expected to know and follow the rules governing their functions. The Administrative Code's general grant of authority to administer oaths does not override specific notarial rules.
• Accountability is strict. Court employees who fail to meet the exacting standards of public office face grave administrative penalties, including suspension or dismissal.

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