Lawyerly

AM No. MTJ-14-1842

2014-02-24

LEONEN, J.

Judge[7] For notarizing affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage he solemnized, Judge Rojo allegedly violated Circular No. 1-90 dated February 26, 1990.[8] Circular No. 1-90 allows municipal trial court judges to act as notaries public ex officio and notarize documents only if connected with their official functions and duties. Rex argues that affidavits of cohabitation are not connected with a judge's official functions and duties as solemnizing officer.[9] Thus, Judge Rojo cannot notarize ex officio affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage he solemnized.

AM No. MTJ-14-1842

2014-02-24

REX M. TUPAL v. JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO

LEONEN, J.

Judge Rojo did not deny notarizing the affidavits of cohabitation. He argued that notarizing affidavits of cohabitation was connected with his official functions and duties as a judge.[13] The Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the Judiciary[14] does not prohibit judges from notarizing affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage they will solemnize.[15] Thus, Judge Rojo did not violate Circular No. 1-90.

AM No. MTJ-14-1842

2014-02-24

REX M. TUPAL v. JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO

LEONEN, J.

Judge Rojo admitted that he notarized affidavits of cohabitation of parties "on the same day [he solemnized their marriages]."[33] He notarized documents not connected with his official function and duty to solemnize marriages. Thus, Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 1-90.

AM No. MTJ-14-1842

2014-02-24

REX M. TUPAL v. JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO

LEONEN, J.

Judge Rojo argued that Circular No. 1-90 only prohibits municipal trial court judges from notarizing "private documents x x x [bearing] no direct relation to the performance of their functions as judges."[34] Since a marriage license is a public document, its "counterpart," the affidavit of cohabitation, is also a public document. Thus, when he notarizes an affidavit of cohabitation, he notarizes a public document. He did not violate Circular No. 1-90.

AM No. MTJ-14-1842

2014-02-24

REX M. TUPAL v. JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO

LEONEN, J.

Judge Rojo argued that Circular No. 1-90's purpose is to "eliminate competition between judges and private lawyers in transacting legal conveyancing business."[36] He cited Borre v. Judge Moya[37] where this court found City Judge Arcilla guilty of violating Circular No. 1-90 for notarizing a deed of sale. Judge Rojo argued that when he notarized the affidavits of cohabitation, he did "not compete with private law practitioners or regular notaries in transacting legal conveyancing business."[38] Thus, he did not violate Circular No. 1-90.

AM No. MTJ-14-1842

2014-02-24

REX M. TUPAL v. JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO

LEONEN, J.

Judge Rojo argued that Circular No. 1-90's purpose is to "eliminate competition between judges and private lawyers in transacting legal conveyancing business."[36] He cited Borre v. Judge Moya[37] where this court found City Judge Arcilla guilty of violating Circular No. 1-90 for notarizing a deed of sale. Judge Rojo argued that when he notarized the affidavits of cohabitation, he did "not compete with private law practitioners or regular notaries in transacting legal conveyancing business."[38] Thus, he did not violate Circular No. 1-90.

AM No. MTJ-14-1842

2014-02-24

REX M. TUPAL v. JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO

LEONEN, J.

Thus, in Mayor Quiñones v. Judge Lopez, Jr.,[40] this court fined Judge Lopez for notarizing a certificate of candidacy. In Ellert v. Judge Galapon, Jr.,[41] this court fined Judge Galapon for notarizing the verification page of an answer filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. The documents involved in these cases were not used to transact "legal conveyancing business." Nevertheless, this court found Judge Lopez and Judge Galapon guilty of violating Circular No. 1-90.

AM No. MTJ-06-1659

2009-06-18

ANNA JANE D. LIHAYLIHAY v. JUDGE ALEJANDRO T. CANDA

CARPIO, J.

The Court notes that this is Judge Canda's second offense. In Barbarona v. Judge Canda,[23] the Court fined him for violation of Circular No. 1-90 and warned him that the repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. Considering the gravity of Judge Canda's offense and the fact that this is his second offense, the Court fines him P40,000.

AM No. MTJ-07-1682

2008-06-19

ESTER F. BARBERO v. JUDGE CESAR M. DUMLAO

PER CURIAM

Aside from Lim, Pascual, and Office of the Court Administrator, Judge Dumlao has another administrative case decided against him. In Morales, Sr. v. Judge Dumlao,[25] the Court found him liable for violating SC Administrative Circular No. 1-90. In that case, the Court held that:[Judge Dumlao's] claim that he did not know how he inadvertently signed the notarized revocation of power of attorney in this case betrays a deficiency of that degree of circumspection demanded of all those who don the judicial robe. It is, in fact, an open admission of his negligence and lack of care in attending to the incidents brought before him for adjudication. This kind of judicial carelessness runs contrary to Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that:

AM No. MTJ-05-1576

2005-02-03

VICTORINO SIMON v. JUDGE ALIPIO M. ARAGON

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

certification as to lack of a notary public within his municipality or circuit.[20] In Doughlas v. Lopes, Jr.,[21] the respondent judge was fined the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for unauthorized notarization of a private document. Since in the instant case, the respondent judge committed seven (7) acts of

GR No. 129416

2004-11-25

ZENAIDA B. TIGNO v. SPS. ESTAFINO AQUINO

TINGA, J,

There may be sufficient ground to call to task Judge Cariño, who ceased being a judge in 1986, for his improper notarial activity. Perhaps though, formal sanction may no longer be appropriate considering Judge Cariño's advanced age, assuming he is still alive.[39] However, this Decision should again serve as an affirmation of the rule prohibiting municipal judges from notarizing documents not connected with the exercise of their official duties, subject to the exceptions laid down in Circular No. 1-90.

AM No. MTJ-00-1294

2000-07-31

HORST FRANZ ELLERT v. JUDGE VICTORIO GALAPON

BUENA, J.

notaries public ex officio, perform any act within the competency of a regular notary public, provided that: (1) all notarial fees charged be for the account of the Government and turned over to the municipal treasurer (Lapena, Jr. vs. Marcos, Adm. Matter No. 1969-MJ, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 572); and, (2) certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit."[8] Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may perform their functions as notaries public ex-officio only in the notarization of documents connected with the exercise of their official functions. They may not undertake the preparation and

	AM No. MTJ-14-1842 2014-02-24	REX M. TUPAL v. JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO LEONEN, J.
Judge[7] For notarizing affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage he solemnized, Judge Rojo allegedly violated Circular No. 1-90 dated February 26, 1990.[8] Circular No. 1-90 allows municipal trial court judges to act as notaries public ex officio and notarize documents only if connected with their official functions and duties. Rex argues that affidavits of cohabitation are not connected with a judge's official functions and duties as solemnizing officer.[9] Thus, Judge Rojo cannot notarize ex officio affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage he solemnized.
	AM No. MTJ-14-1842 2014-02-24	REX M. TUPAL v. JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO LEONEN, J.
Judge Rojo did not deny notarizing the affidavits of cohabitation. He argued that notarizing affidavits of cohabitation was connected with his official functions and duties as a judge.[13] The Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the Judiciary[14] does not prohibit judges from notarizing affidavits of cohabitation of parties whose marriage they will solemnize.[15] Thus, Judge Rojo did not violate Circular No. 1-90.
	AM No. MTJ-14-1842 2014-02-24	REX M. TUPAL v. JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO LEONEN, J.
Judge Rojo admitted that he notarized affidavits of cohabitation of parties "on the same day [he solemnized their marriages]."[33] He notarized documents not connected with his official function and duty to solemnize marriages. Thus, Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 1-90.
	AM No. MTJ-14-1842 2014-02-24	REX M. TUPAL v. JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO LEONEN, J.
Judge Rojo argued that Circular No. 1-90 only prohibits municipal trial court judges from notarizing "private documents x x x [bearing] no direct relation to the performance of their functions as judges."[34] Since a marriage license is a public document, its "counterpart," the affidavit of cohabitation, is also a public document. Thus, when he notarizes an affidavit of cohabitation, he notarizes a public document. He did not violate Circular No. 1-90.
	AM No. MTJ-14-1842 2014-02-24	REX M. TUPAL v. JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO LEONEN, J.
Judge Rojo argued that Circular No. 1-90's purpose is to "eliminate competition between judges and private lawyers in transacting legal conveyancing business."[36] He cited Borre v. Judge Moya[37] where this court found City Judge Arcilla guilty of violating Circular No. 1-90 for notarizing a deed of sale. Judge Rojo argued that when he notarized the affidavits of cohabitation, he did "not compete with private law practitioners or regular notaries in transacting legal conveyancing business."[38] Thus, he did not violate Circular No. 1-90.
	AM No. MTJ-14-1842 2014-02-24	REX M. TUPAL v. JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO LEONEN, J.
Judge Rojo argued that Circular No. 1-90's purpose is to "eliminate competition between judges and private lawyers in transacting legal conveyancing business."[36] He cited Borre v. Judge Moya[37] where this court found City Judge Arcilla guilty of violating Circular No. 1-90 for notarizing a deed of sale. Judge Rojo argued that when he notarized the affidavits of cohabitation, he did "not compete with private law practitioners or regular notaries in transacting legal conveyancing business."[38] Thus, he did not violate Circular No. 1-90.
	AM No. MTJ-14-1842 2014-02-24	REX M. TUPAL v. JUDGE REMEGIO V. ROJO LEONEN, J.
Thus, in Mayor Quiñones v. Judge Lopez, Jr.,[40] this court fined Judge Lopez for notarizing a certificate of candidacy. In Ellert v. Judge Galapon, Jr.,[41] this court fined Judge Galapon for notarizing the verification page of an answer filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. The documents involved in these cases were not used to transact "legal conveyancing business." Nevertheless, this court found Judge Lopez and Judge Galapon guilty of violating Circular No. 1-90.
	AM No. MTJ-06-1659 2009-06-18	ANNA JANE D. LIHAYLIHAY v. JUDGE ALEJANDRO T. CANDA CARPIO, J.
The Court notes that this is Judge Canda's second offense. In Barbarona v. Judge Canda,[23] the Court fined him for violation of Circular No. 1-90 and warned him that the repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. Considering the gravity of Judge Canda's offense and the fact that this is his second offense, the Court fines him P40,000.
	AM No. MTJ-07-1682 2008-06-19	ESTER F. BARBERO v. JUDGE CESAR M. DUMLAO PER CURIAM
Aside from Lim, Pascual, and Office of the Court Administrator, Judge Dumlao has another administrative case decided against him. In Morales, Sr. v. Judge Dumlao,[25] the Court found him liable for violating SC Administrative Circular No. 1-90. In that case, the Court held that:[Judge Dumlao's] claim that he did not know how he inadvertently signed the notarized revocation of power of attorney in this case betrays a deficiency of that degree of circumspection demanded of all those who don the judicial robe. It is, in fact, an open admission of his negligence and lack of care in attending to the incidents brought before him for adjudication. This kind of judicial carelessness runs contrary to Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which states that:
	AM No. MTJ-05-1576 2005-02-03	VICTORINO SIMON v. JUDGE ALIPIO M. ARAGON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
certification as to lack of a notary public within his municipality or circuit.[20] In Doughlas v. Lopes, Jr.,[21] the respondent judge was fined the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for unauthorized notarization of a private document. Since in the instant case, the respondent judge committed seven (7) acts of
	GR No. 129416 2004-11-25	ZENAIDA B. TIGNO v. SPS. ESTAFINO AQUINO TINGA, J,
There may be sufficient ground to call to task Judge Cariño, who ceased being a judge in 1986, for his improper notarial activity. Perhaps though, formal sanction may no longer be appropriate considering Judge Cariño's advanced age, assuming he is still alive.[39] However, this Decision should again serve as an affirmation of the rule prohibiting municipal judges from notarizing documents not connected with the exercise of their official duties, subject to the exceptions laid down in Circular No. 1-90.
	AM No. MTJ-00-1294 2000-07-31	HORST FRANZ ELLERT v. JUDGE VICTORIO GALAPON BUENA, J.
notaries public ex officio, perform any act within the competency of a regular notary public, provided that: (1) all notarial fees charged be for the account of the Government and turned over to the municipal treasurer (Lapena, Jr. vs. Marcos, Adm. Matter No. 1969-MJ, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 572); and, (2) certification be made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit."[8] Judges of the Municipal Trial Courts or Municipal Circuit Trial Courts may perform their functions as notaries public ex-officio only in the notarization of documents connected with the exercise of their official functions. They may not undertake the preparation and

ALEX B. CUETO v. ATTY. JOSE B. JIMENEZ