When Can a Judge Notarize Documents? Supreme Court Rules on Ex-Officio Notaries

The Supreme Court has long recognized that municipal trial court judges may act as notaries public by virtue of their office. But this power is not unlimited. In a 2000 administrative case, the Court clarified exactly when a judge may notarize documents—and when doing so constitutes unlawful practice of law.

The case of Ellert v. Galapon (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1294, July 31, 2000) arose from a complaint against Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court of Dulag, Leyte. The complainant alleged that the judge notarized an Answer filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)—a case that was not pending before his court.

The Facts of the Case

The complainant, Horst Franz Ellert, filed administrative charges against Judge Galapon for grave misconduct, abuse of judicial authority, ignorance of the law, unlawful notarization, perjury, and false testimony. The charges stemmed from two related cases: a DARAB case involving land disputes and a criminal case for light threats filed against Ellert.

The key allegation concerned an Answer filed by Marina Roca and Odeth Roca with the DARAB. Judge Galapon had signed the jurat, administering the oath on the Verification portion of that pleading. Ellert argued that a municipal trial court judge may only administer oaths for documents connected with cases pending before his own court—not for documents filed with other tribunals.

Judge Galapon admitted notarizing the Answer but argued there was nothing wrong with his action. He claimed he acted without malice or bad faith.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether a municipal trial court judge acts within his authority when he notarizes a pleading in a case pending before a different adjudicative body, such as the DARAB.

The Ruling: Limits of Ex-Officio Notarial Power

The Supreme Court found Judge Galapon guilty of unauthorized notarization, which constitutes unlawful practice of law. The Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and warned that repetition would be dealt with more severely.

In reaching this decision, the Court applied Circular No. I-90, which delineates the notarial powers of municipal trial court (MTC) and municipal circuit trial court (MCTC) judges. Under this circular:

• 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 functions.
• The 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges from engaging in the private practice of law (Canon 5, Rule 5.07).

The Court noted one narrow exception: judges assigned to municipalities with no lawyers or notaries public may perform any act within the competency of a regular notary public, provided that (1) notarial fees are turned over to the municipal treasurer, and (2) the notarized documents contain a certification attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in the municipality.

Application to the Case

The Answer filed with the DARAB was clearly a document bearing no relation to Judge Galapon's judicial functions. Since the case was not pending before his court, his act of notarizing the pleading fell outside the scope of his authority as an ex-officio notary public.

Furthermore, there was no showing that Dulag, Leyte lacked lawyers or notaries public. Therefore, the exception under Circular No. I-90 did not apply.

The Court rejected Judge Galapon's defense that he saw nothing wrong with his action. A judge should know the extent of his authority as an ex-officio notary public. If uncertain, he should verify from the Office of the Court Administrator before acting.

Practical Takeaways

• Judges are not general notaries. A municipal trial court judge may notarize documents only when these are connected with the exercise of official judicial functions—typically, pleadings and papers in cases pending before that judge's own court.
• Notarizing unrelated documents is unlawful practice of law. Even if the judge believes he is acting in good faith, notarizing documents for cases before other tribunals or agencies violates Circular No. I-90 and the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• The exception is narrow. Judges in municipalities without lawyers or notaries may perform broader notarial acts, but only with proper certification and turnover of fees to the government.
• Ignorance is no excuse. Judges are expected to know the limits of their authority. Doubt should be resolved by consulting the Office of the Court Administrator.
• Administrative liability is real. Unauthorized notarization carries administrative sanctions, including fines, and repeated infractions invite more severe penalties.

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