This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2005-07-29 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| On October 27, 2004, the Office of the Court Administrator submitted its Memorandum. It held that the complaints should be dismissed with respect to respondent's issuance of the warrant of arrest because the inconsistency of the dates in the warrant and criminal complaint are simply procedural lapses made in good faith. However, with regard to the notarization of a Deed of Absolute Sale, it disagreed with the findings and recommendation of Investigating Judge Gil that respondent judge should be exonerated. It reasoned that the rule on the power of the MTC and MCTC judges to act as notaries public ex-officio has been established even before the issuance of Circular No. 1-90 dated 26 February 1990. It cited the cases of Borre v. Moya,[2] and Penera v. Dalocanog,[3] wherein the Court ruled that judges are empowered to perform the functions of notaries public ex-officio, but such authority is limited to the notarization of only those documents connected with the exercise of their official functions. It added that this instance not being the first that respondent committed the infraction, having been found in A.M. No. MTJ-00-1294 (formerly OCA IPI No. 00-859-MTJ Horst Franz Ellert vs. Judge Galapon, Jr., July 31, 2000) to have engaged in unauthorized notarial work, he should be fined the amount of Eleven Thousand Pesos (P11,000). | |||||
|
2004-11-25 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Respondent's contention is erroneous. Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges are empowered to perform the functions of notaries public ex officio under Section 76 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended (otherwise known as the Judiciary Act of 1948) and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code.[33] However, as far back as 1980 in Borre v. Moya,[34] the Court explicitly declared that municipal court judges such as Cariño may notarize only documents connected with the exercise of their official duties.[35] The Deed of Sale was not connected with any official duties of Judge Cariño, and there was no reason for him to notarize it. Our observations as to the errant judge in Borre are pertinent in this case, considering that Judge Cariño identified himself in the Deed of Sale as "Ex-Officio Notary Public, Judge, MTC:" | |||||