Supreme Court on Clerks of Court as Notaries: Limits of Ex Officio Powers

The Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Coquia v. Laforteza (A.C. No. 9364) clarifies the limits of a clerk of court's power to act as a notary public ex officio. The case reminds all government lawyers and court personnel that holding a position that carries notarial authority does not grant unlimited power to notarize private documents. It also underscores the strict duty to verify the identity of every signatory before administering an oath.

The Facts of the Case

Atty. Emmanuel Laforteza served as Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 68, in Lingayen, Pangasinan, from November 2004 until January 2011. In January 2009, while still in office, he notarized two private documents involving a dispute between Flordeliza Coquia and Clemente Solis.

Coquia filed a disbarment complaint, alleging that Laforteza falsified documents by making it appear she had appeared before him on a date when she was actually attending classes in Manila. Laforteza admitted he did not personally know the parties and relied on fellow court employees to establish their identities. He also admitted that Coquia did not sign the documents in his presence.

The Issue

The central question was whether a clerk of court, acting as a notary public ex officio, may notarize private documents unrelated to official court functions, and whether Laforteza complied with the requirements of notarial law.

The Ruling

The Court found that Laforteza committed unauthorized notarial acts and violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. His notarial commission, if any, was revoked, and he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one year.

Limits on Ex Officio Notaries

The Court clarified that the power of clerks of court to act as notaries public ex officio is limited to notarial acts connected to their official functions. Citing Borre v. Moya and Exec. Judge Astorga v. Solas, the Court held that notarizing private documents bearing no relation to official duties is beyond the scope of an ex officio notary's authority.

The Court noted that performing notarial acts on unrelated documents is now the exception, not the rule. It may be done only if two conditions are met: (1) a certification in the notarized document attests to the lack of any other lawyer or notary public in the municipality or circuit; and (2) all notarial fees are turned over to the government. Neither condition was present in this case.

Duty to Verify Identity

The Court also emphasized that notarization is not an empty routine. Under Rule II, Section 1 and Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary must require the signatory to appear personally and must verify identity through competent evidence, such as an identification card with photograph and signature.

Laforteza failed this duty. He notarized a pre-signed document, relied on others to identify the parties, and affixed his signature to an incomplete notarial certificate. The Court stressed that a notary should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same ones who personally appeared before the notary.

Why the Disbarment Complaint Was Dismissed

Despite the violations, the Court dismissed the disbarment complaint for lack of evidence of conspiracy or falsification. Coquia failed to present clear and preponderant evidence that Laforteza directly participated in forging the documents. Bare allegations of misconduct cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions.

Practical Takeaways

• Clerks of court and other ex officio notaries may notarize only documents related to their official functions. Private documents require the conditions under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Notarizing unrelated private documents is unauthorized practice of law and can result in revocation of commission and disqualification.
• A notary must require personal appearance of every signatory. Notarizing pre-signed documents is a violation of notarial law.
• Identity must be verified through competent evidence, such as a government-issued ID with photo and signature—not merely through the assurance of third parties.
• The penalty for violating notarial rules applies even after a lawyer leaves public office, as the Court can still impose disciplinary sanctions on the lawyer.

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