A.M. No. MTJ-05-1576; February 03, 2005
Victorino Simon, complainant vs. Judge Alipio M. Aragon, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, San Pablo, Isabela, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Victorino Simon charged respondent Judge Alipio M. Aragon, presiding judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of San Pablo and Cabagan, Isabela, with conduct unbecoming of an officer for engaging in unauthorized notarial practice. The complainant alleged that the judge notarized numerous private documents, such as affidavits and deeds of absolute sale from 1986 to 2000, which bore no direct relation to his official judicial functions. He further averred that these documents lacked the certification required under Circular No. 1-90, which attests to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in the municipality or circuit.
In his defense, respondent judge admitted notarizing the documents but explained he was constrained to do so from 1983 to 1992 due to an absence of lawyers or notaries in San Pablo, Isabela. He claimed he voluntarily desisted upon learning of Circular No. 1-90 in 1993 and never personally profited, as fees were paid to the municipal treasurer. He argued he could not be liable for acts prior to the circular’s promulgation on February 26, 1990.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Alipio M. Aragon is administratively liable for notarizing private documents in violation of the rules governing notarial practice for judges.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of violating Circular No. 1-90. The circular explicitly provides that Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Court judges may act as notaries public ex officio only for documents connected with their official functions. They are prohibited from notarizing private documents unrelated to judicial duties. An exception exists for municipalities with no lawyers or notaries, but it mandates two strict requisites: all notarial fees must be remitted to the municipal treasury, and each document must contain a certification attesting to the lack of a notary public in the locality.
The Court agreed that the judge could not be sanctioned for acts prior to the effectivity of Circular No. 1-90. However, the records conclusively showed he notarized seven private documents after February 26, 1990. These documents, which included deeds of sale and affidavits of settlement, were not connected to his official functions and critically lacked the required certification regarding the absence of a notary public. By performing these notarial acts without complying with the indispensable certification requirement, the judge acted beyond the scope of his authority as a notary public ex officio. Consequently, following precedent, the Court imposed a fine of Seven Thousand Pesos (P7,000.00), corresponding to one thousand pesos for each of the seven unauthorized notarizations committed after the circular took effect.