G.R. No. MTJ-02-1428; April 9, 2003
MAYOR ARFRAN L. QUIÑONES, complainant, vs. JUDGE FRANCISCO H. LOPEZ JR., Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Lupon, Davao Oriental, respondent.

FACTS

A letter-complaint was filed by Mayor Arfran L. Quiñones before the Office of the Ombudsman, alleging conspiracy among Judge Francisco H. Lopez, Jr., Atty. Francisco G. Geronilla, and mayoralty candidate Manuel B. Guiñez in the improvident filing of Guiñez’s certificate of candidacy. The Ombudsman referred the charge against Judge Lopez to the Supreme Court, invoking the doctrine in Maceda vs. Vasquez which holds that administrative supervision over court personnel is exclusively vested in the Supreme Court. The complaint specifically averred that Guiñez’s certificate of candidacy, subscribed and sworn to before Judge Lopez on February 28, 2001, in Lupon, Davao Oriental, was fraudulent because Guiñez was, in fact, confined at St. Luke’s Medical Center in Manila from February 20 to March 9, 2001, making his personal appearance impossible.
In his comment, Judge Lopez admitted notarizing the certificate of candidacy of Guiñez in Lupon while the affiant was in Manila. He explained that Guiñez, a prominent businessman, had made prior arrangements for the notarization of his pre-signed certificate before leaving for Manila, and that it was presented to him on February 28 by other members of Guiñez’s political party. Respondent Judge claimed familiarity with Guiñez’s signature, having notarized documents for him before in his capacity as an ex-officio notary public.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Francisco H. Lopez, Jr. is administratively liable for notarizing a certificate of candidacy outside the scope of his authority as an ex-officio notary public and for notarizing a document without the personal presence of the affiant.

RULING

Yes, Judge Lopez is administratively liable. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). The Court ruled that Judge Lopez acted beyond the scope of his authority as an ex-officio notary public under Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90. This circular explicitly states that Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court judges may act as notaries public ex officio only for documents connected with the exercise of their official functions and duties. They are prohibited from notarizing private documents, such as certificates of candidacy, which bear no direct relation to their judicial functions. An exception exists for municipalities with no lawyers or notaries public, but this requires a certification in the notarized document attesting to such lack. The records did not indicate that Lupon, Davao Oriental lacked a notary public, and Judge Lopez failed to issue any such required certification.
Furthermore, the Court found that Judge Lopez violated a fundamental duty of a notary public by notarizing a document without the affiant’s personal presence. His defense that Guiñez had pre-arranged the notarization of a pre-signed document was itself a transgression, as notarization is not an empty ritual but a process that demands the signatory’s presence to authenticate the act. The Court cited Coronado vs. Felongco, emphasizing that notarization converts a private document into a public one entitled to full faith and credit, and notaries must observe the basic requirements with utmost care. This was a repeat offense for Judge Lopez, who had been previously fined and sternly warned in A.M. No. MTJ-96-1076 for a similar violation of Circular