A.M. No. P-17-3705, February 6, 2018
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Paulino I. Saguyod, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 67, Paniqui, Tarlac

FACTS

This administrative case originated from an audit report adopted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The audit examined cases decided by a former judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67. During the investigation, the Audit Team discovered that the respondent, Branch Clerk of Court Paulino I. Saguyod, had notarized a multitude of documents filed before the court. It was found that he performed these notarial acts without complying with the mandatory condition set forth in the Court’s guidelines, specifically the requirement to certify that there were no available notaries public within the municipality.
In his explanation, Saguyod admitted to notarizing the documents but claimed he acted in good faith and without monetary consideration. He cited a provision of the Administrative Code authorizing clerks of court to administer oaths and argued he believed he was performing a vital function for the administration of justice. He apologized for not strictly adhering to the Rules on Notarial Practice and stated he had since refrained from notarizing documents after the audit.

ISSUE

Whether or not respondent Paulino I. Saguyod should be held administratively liable for notarizing various court documents without complying with the prescribed rules.

RULING

Yes, the Court found respondent guilty of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. The Court adopted the OCA’s recommendation, emphasizing that inefficiency involves specific acts or omissions resulting in damage and is akin to neglect of duty, which signifies a disregard of duty from carelessness or indifference.
The legal logic centers on the violation of a specific Court resolution, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, which authorizes Clerks of Court to notarize documents subject to explicit conditions. One critical condition is that the Clerk of Court must certify in the notarized document that there are no notaries public within the court’s territorial jurisdiction. The Court found that Saguyod repeatedly notarized documents without including this required certification. His defenses of good faith and lack of available notaries were rejected. The Court noted the existence of other petitions filed in the same court that were properly notarized by notaries public in Paniqui, contradicting his claim. His admission to notarizing incomplete documents further aggravated his liability.
The act of notarization is imbued with public interest, and strict compliance with procedural rules is non-negotiable to preserve the integrity of the notarial process. Saguyod’s failure to observe these rules, despite his position, constituted gross inefficiency. Considering the repeated nature of the violations, the Court imposed a penalty of one-year suspension from service, with a stern warning that a repetition would warrant dismissal.