Clerk of Court's Notarial Authority and Decorum: Lessons from Solas

The Supreme Court's 2009 resolution in Leyrit v. Solas (A.M. No. P-08-2567) serves as a clear reminder that court personnel must observe both the legal limits of their authority and the highest standards of professional conduct. The case involved a Clerk of Court who notarized private documents beyond his official functions and behaved abusively toward his subordinates. The ruling clarifies when clerks of court may act as notaries and what conduct is expected of them.

The Facts of the Case

Nicolasito S. Solas was the Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Iloilo City. Several employees of his office filed administrative complaints against him, alleging dishonesty, discourtesy, abuse of authority, grave misconduct, and other offenses.

The complainants presented evidence that Solas notarized sworn applications for Mayor's and business permits, affidavits, and other private documents unrelated to his official duties. He charged notarial fees for these services but did not account for them to the government. The complainants also testified that Solas shouted at them, humiliated them in front of other people, and used abusive language toward them in the office.

Solas defended himself by claiming he mistakenly thought some subscriptions were jurats, that he was a law graduate who saw no need to correct people who addressed him as "attorney," and that the complainants were simply retaliating against him for administrative cases he had filed against them.

The Issue

The central issues were whether Solas exceeded his authority as a notary public ex officio by notarizing private documents, and whether his conduct toward his subordinates violated the standards expected of court personnel.

The Ruling on Notarial Authority

The Supreme Court held that while clerks of court are notaries public ex officio, their authority is not unlimited. Under Section 41 of the Administrative Code of 1987, as amended by Republic Act No. 6733, clerks of court may administer oaths—but only on matters involving official business.

The Court explained that clerks of court should not, in their ex officio capacity, take part in the execution of private documents bearing no relation to their official functions. Since Iloilo City is a highly urbanized area with available lawyers and notaries public, no exception applied. Solas had no authority to notarize permit applications, affidavits, and other private or commercial documents, nor to accept fees for such services.

The Court rejected Solas's defense that he mistook oaths for jurats. Under Rule II of the Rules on Notarial Practice, both acts constitute notarization. Whether he administered an oath or subscribed a jurat, he was still performing notarial services beyond his authority.

However, the Court noted that Solas had already been penalized in a prior case (A.M. No. P-01-1484) for notarizing the same documents. Imposing another penalty for the same acts would constitute double penalty.

The Ruling on Decorum

The Court found Solas liable for simple misconduct for his behavior toward his subordinates. Citing Villaros v. Orpiano, the Court stressed that all employees involved in the administration of justice must be guided by strict propriety and decorum at all times. High-strung and belligerent behavior has no place in government service, where personnel must act with self-restraint and civility.

The Court emphasized that this standard applies not only to dealings with the public but also to dealings with co-workers. A clerk of court, as an important functionary of the judiciary, should be a role model for other court employees. Solas failed to foster harmony and instead fomented discord by treating some subordinates unfairly while favoring others.

Since Solas had already retired, suspension was no longer feasible. The Court imposed a fine equivalent to three months' salary, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

Practical Takeaways

• Clerks of court are notaries public ex officio, but only for official business. Notarizing private documents unrelated to court functions is an abuse of authority, even if the clerk is a law graduate.
• Ignorance of notarial rules is no excuse. Court personnel are expected to know the limits of their authority, including the distinction between oaths and jurats.
• Court employees must maintain decorum with everyone—including each other. The standard of civility applies to dealings with co-workers, not just the public.
• Prior penalties matter. A respondent cannot be penalized twice for the same acts already punished in an earlier case.
• Retirement does not escape liability. Administrative penalties can be deducted from retirement benefits when suspension is no longer feasible.

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