A.M. No. MTJ-96-1076. February 9, 2000. VENUS P. DOUGHLAS, complainant, vs. JUDGE FRANCISCO H. LOPEZ, JR., MCTC, Lupon Banaybanay, Davao Oriental, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Venus P. Doughlas, an heir of the late Bienvenido Paquingan, alleged that an “Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate with Special Power of Attorney” used to facilitate the voluntary sale of family land under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (DAR) contained forged signatures of the heirs. She asserted the signatures appeared to be executed by only one person and that all heirs resided abroad, making their simultaneous appearance in Banaybanay, Davao Oriental on March 12, 1994, as indicated in the document, incredible. Respondent Judge Francisco H. Lopez, Jr., Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) Judge of Lupon-Banaybanay, admitted notarizing the document but claimed he did so on an accommodation basis, believing it was a government transaction with DAR, and that he had no participation in its preparation beyond affixing his signature.
The complaint was referred for investigation. The complainant repeatedly failed to appear at scheduled hearings despite notice, leading the Investigating Judge to initially recommend admonishment for respondent due to lack of substantiated evidence for forgery. The Supreme Court ordered a further investigation, but the complainant again failed to appear.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Lopez, Jr. is administratively liable for his actions concerning the notarization of the questioned document.

RULING

Yes, but not for the alleged forgery. The Court dismissed the complaint for forgery due to the complainant’s failure to substantiate her allegations with clear and convincing evidence, as evidenced by her repeated non-appearance at investigations. However, the Court found respondent judge administratively liable for unauthorized notarization of a private document.
The legal logic is grounded on the limitations of a judge’s notarial powers. Judges may act as notaries public ex-officio, but under prevailing jurisprudence and circulars, MCTC judges may only notarize documents connected with the exercise of their official judicial functions and duties. They are prohibited from notarizing private documents, such as the “Extra Judicial Settlement of Estate,” which bear no direct relation to their judicial duties, as this constitutes unauthorized private practice of law. The Court noted that even assuming there was a lack of notaries public in his area—a circumstance that could allow broader notarial authority under specific conditions—respondent judge failed to comply with the requisite certification attesting to such lack. Evidence also indicated there were practicing lawyers/notaries in Banaybanay during the relevant period. His claim of accommodation for a perceived government transaction does not excuse the violation, as the document remained a private instrument among heirs. Consequently, he was fined P1,000.00 and sternly warned.