Elemar G. Bote, complainant, vs. Judge Geminiano A. Eduardo, MTC, Gen. Tinio, Nueva Ecija, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Elemar G. Bote and his wife purchased land in 1985. The deed of sale was notarized by respondent Judge Geminiano A. Eduardo, acting as an ex officio notary public, in March 1986. However, the judge erroneously dated the notarization as March 19, 1985. This error led to civil and criminal cases being filed against Bote. Despite repeated requests over the years, Judge Eduardo refused to correct the mistake.
In 1998, Bote sent a final demand letter, attaching a certified copy of the notarial register showing the correct 1986 date. Instead of rectifying the error, Judge Eduardo issued a certification insisting the 1985 date was accurate. He argued the deed itself was the best evidence and questioned the notarial register’s entry because it was not in his handwriting, later admitting his clerk made such entries for him. This prompted Bote to file an administrative complaint for serious neglect of duty and grave misconduct.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Eduardo is administratively liable for his actions concerning the erroneous notarization and subsequent refusal to correct it.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Eduardo administratively liable for simple negligence. The Court’s legal analysis established his lack of due care. The deed contained internal inconsistencies, notably referencing a vendor’s residence certificate issued in September 1985, which logically could not have been cited in a document notarized in March 1985. This contradicted Judge Eduardo’s claim. Furthermore, the notarial register, which carries a presumption of regularity as prima facie evidence, clearly indicated the 1986 date. His defense that the register entry was not in his handwriting was undermined by his own admission that his clerk routinely made such entries for him.
The Court emphasized the profound public interest in notarization, which converts private documents into public instruments. A notary public, including a judge acting ex officio, must perform this duty with utmost care to preserve public confidence in the integrity of documents. Judge Eduardo’s negligence in notarizing a document with unfilled spaces, making fraudulent insertions possible, and his persistent refusal to acknowledge the obvious error despite evidence, constituted a failure to meet this standard. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended a fine of ₱10,000, but the Court deemed ₱5,000 appropriate for simple negligence. However, since records showed Judge Eduardo had already passed away in June 2001, prior to the resolution of the administrative case, the Court, for humanitarian reasons and following precedent, dismissed the complaint.
