G.R. No. MTJ-99-1204. July 28, 2008.
GERONIMO C. FUENTES, Complainant, vs. JUDGE ROMUALDO G. BUNO, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Geronimo Fuentes charged Judge Romualdo Buno with abuse of authority and graft for notarizing an “Extra-Judicial Partition with Simultaneous Absolute Deed of Sale” concerning his father’s agricultural land. Fuentes alleged that while his Special Power of Attorney (SPA) only authorized his brother Alejandro to mortgage the property, the judge notarized a document where Alejandro, purportedly on behalf of all heirs including Geronimo, sold the land. He contended the judge abused his notarial powers.
Judge Buno admitted notarizing the document as an ex-officio notary public. He explained that the vendors, including the complainant’s mother and siblings, urgently requested the notarization, assuring him that Geronimo’s SPA authorizing the sale was forthcoming. He later learned Geronimo’s SPA only authorized a mortgage but proceeded after the family assured him they would handle any issues and the vendee agreed to reserve Geronimo’s share.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Romualdo Buno is administratively liable for notarizing the subject document.

RULING

Yes, Judge Buno is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found he violated Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90 and the Rules on Notarial Practice. While a municipal judge can act as an ex-officio notary public in municipalities lacking a notary public, this authority is not unlimited. Circular No. 1-90 explicitly prohibits judges from notarizing documents connected to their official functions or where they have a direct or indirect interest.
By preparing and notarizing the partition and sale document at the request of parties, Judge Buno engaged in private law practice, which is proscribed. More critically, he notarized the document despite full knowledge that one of the purported co-vendors, Geronimo Fuentes, had not submitted a valid SPA authorizing the sale, only one for a mortgage. Notarizing a document where a party’s authority is patently defective or incomplete violates the notary’s duty to ensure the instrument’s correctness and authenticity. His defense of good faith based on the family’s assurances is unacceptable; a notary must exercise utmost care and not rely on mere representations. The act created a cloud of impropriety and diminished public confidence in his office. For these violations, the Court imposed a fine of Twelve Thousand Pesos (₱12,000.00).