AM RTJ 95 1330; (January, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. RTJ-95-1330. January 30, 1996.
AZUCENA CINCO TABAO AND JESUSA CINCO ACOSTA, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE ENRIQUE C. ASIS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 10, ABUYOG, LEYTE, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Complainants charged then MTCC Judge Enrique C. Asis with gross irregularity, violation of Supreme Court circulars, and abuse of authority. The allegation stemmed from respondent judge notarizing a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) executed by their aunt, Mariquita M. Cinco-Jocson, who was then hospitalized. This SPA authorized the sale of her Quezon City lot for one million pesos, with the proceeds intended for her medical expenses. Respondent admitted notarizing the document, claiming he did so without payment as a gesture of “christian charity and brotherly love.”
Investigation revealed the SPA and a supporting medical affidavit had already been duly notarized by a regular notary public, Flaviano V. Caintic, on June 3, 1992. Respondent judge notarized the same documents on July 23, 1992, over a month later. The Supreme Court found this second notarization unnecessary and inexplicable, as a document executed by a single party does not require multiple notarizations.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Enrique C. Asis is administratively liable for notarizing private documents in violation of rules governing judicial conduct.
RULING
Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The legal logic is anchored on the clear prohibition against judges engaging in the private practice of law or notarizing documents unrelated to their official functions. Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court and Canon 5, Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct explicitly bar judges from private practice to ensure they devote full time to judicial duties, avoid conflicts of interest, and maintain public confidence in judicial impartiality.
While municipal judges may act as notaries public ex-officio, their notarial authority is strictly limited to documents connected with the exercise of their official duties. They cannot notarize private documents like the SPA in question. The exception allowing MTC/MCTC judges in far-flung areas without lawyers to perform comprehensive notarial acts does not apply, as Tacloban City had an abundance of notaries public. Respondent’s claim of “christian charity” is not a valid defense, as it does not excuse the clear breach of established rules. His act of re-notarizing already notarized documents further demonstrated gross irregularity. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a stern warning.