Upload
krislarr
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
1/32
EX-OFFICIO
NOTARIES PUBLIC
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
2/32
Who are the Ex-Officio
Notaries Public?• By virtue of the SC Circular the following are theEx-Officio Notaries Public:
• a. Municipal Trial Court Judges
• b. Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judges
• c. Clerks of Court (under the 2002 RevisedManual for Clerks of Court)
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
3/32
• They may act as Notaries Public exofficio in the notarization of documents
connected only with the exercise oftheir official functions and duties[ornev. Ma!o" #d$. Matter %o. &'*C+," -ctober&'" &/0. &00 CR# 1&3 4enera v.
5alocanog" #d$. Matter %o. 2&&1*MJ" #pril22" &/&" &0 CR# &1.6
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
4/32
78cept9.They may not, as Notaries Public ex officio,undertake the preparation and acknowledgmentof private documents, contracts and other acts of
conveyances which bear no direct relation to the performance of their functions as judges. The1989 Code of Judicial Conduct not only enjoins
judges to regulate their extra-judicial activities in
order to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties, but also prohibits them from
engaging in the private practice of law [Canon 5and Rule 5.07].
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
5/32
78ception to the
78ceptionThe Court taking judicial notice of the factthat there are still municipalities which have
neither lawyers nor notaries public, rules thatMTC and MCTC judges assigned tomunicipalities or circuits with no lawyers ornotaries public may, in the capacity as
notaries public ex officio, perform any actwithin the competency of a regular notary
public: Provided, That:
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
6/32
[1] all notarial fees charged be for theaccount of the Government and turned overto the municipal treasurer (Lapena, Jr. vs.Marcos, Adm. Matter No. 1969-MJ, June 29,
1982, 114 SCRA 572); and
[2] certification be made in the notarizeddocuments attesting to the lack of any lawyer
or notary public in such municipality orcircuit.
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
7/32
GUIDELINES RELATIVE TO PRINTING ANDDISTRIBUTION OF NOTARIAL BOOKS, 2004 RULES ONNOTARIAL PRACTICE, A.M. NO. 02-8-13-SC, SC EN
BANC RESOLUTION
1.Notaries public who render legal and notarial services
within the National Capital Judicial Region shall
secure their notarial registers from the Property
Division, ffice of the !dministrative "ervices of theffice of the Court !dministrator #C!$.
%.Notaries public in other &udicial regions shall secure
their notarial registers from the ffice of the Cler' of
Court #CC$ of the Regional (rial Court #R(C$ of the
city or province under the supervision of the)*ecutive Judge who issued their respective notarial
commissions. +owever, they may also secure notarial
registers from the ffice of the Court !dministrator.
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
8/32
3. Notarial registers shall be available at P1,200.00each. Said amount shall cover only the costs ofprinting and binding of the notarial registers exclusive
of shipping charges when sold in the provinces.Payments shall be made either to the Cash Division,Financial Management Office (FMO), OCA, or to theClerk of Court/accountable officer in the OCC of the
RTC, as the case may be:
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
9/32
a.The amount collected shall be receipted and deposited
to a separate account of the fiduciary fund to be knownas the “Notarial Register Fund” (NRF).
b. The Cash Division, FMO, OCA, shall maintain with theLand Bank of the Philippines a separate special account
of the fiduciary fund specifically for the NRF. A separatecashbook shall also be kept and maintained for the fund.Withdrawals of deposits shall be made only uponauthorization or approval by the Chief Justice or his dulyauthorized representative.
c. The Court Administrator and the Financial Office of theOCA shall be the authorized signatories for this fund.
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
10/32
4. In view of the current unavailability ofnotarial registers, notaries public shall beallowed to use the temporary form attached
hereto. The notary public concerned shall file awritten request to use the improvised form withthe executive judge that issued hiscommission. A copy of his current
commission shall be attached to such request.
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
11/32
The notaries public who have been authorized to use such
forms shall have them book-bound and initialed on each andevery page by the executive judge before whom the requestwas filed. Each bound copy shall have a maximum of 106pages and shall be treated and used in the same manner asthe new notarial book.
Each request shall be limited to one bound copy. Shouldthe bound copy be used up before the new notarial booksare available, the notary public concerned may requestanew for the use of bound temporary forms. The use of
bound temporary forms shall end when the new notarialbooks are available but, upon written request, the executivejudge may allow the notary public to use up the boundtemporary forms.
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
12/32
5. The OCA shall, within the first ten(10) days of the first month of everyquarter remit to the Office of the
Solicitor General an amountequivalent to 10% of the grosscollections during the preceding
quarter as the share of the OSG inthe sale of the notarial registers.
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
13/32
6. The printed certification of the Court Administratoras to the number of pages of each notarial registershall be countersigned by the following:
a.In the National Capital Judicial Region, the official
of the Office of the Court Administrator authorizedby the Court Administrator to so countersign; and
b. In the case of the other judicial regions, the Clerk
of Court of the Regional Trial Court of the city orprovince where such book has been obtained forcost.
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
14/32
7. The Supreme Court Printing Office shall print the
notarial registers. In the event the Printing Officecannot meet the requirements of the OCA, andsubject to Republic Act No. 9184 (GovernmentProcurement Reform Act), its implementing rules
and regulations, and existing Supreme Courtissuances on procurement, the Court Administratormay contract out the printing of notarial registers tothe following printers in the following order:
a. UP Printing Servicesb. The National Printing Office, orc. Private printing firm
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
15/32
The OCA shall resort to the third optiononly if the first two printers can notaccommodate the requirements of theCourt. After the approval by the Court ofthese guidelines, the OCA shalldisseminate the same through a circular.
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
16/32
CASES
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
17/32
!RN) CR- vs. !((/. -N0NN0N C)N(RN,
!cting Cler' of Court, R(C2CC, Calapan City
Cru32complainant alleges that !tty. Centron
assisted a certain ogdat and De la Cru3 in
consummating the sale of a parcel of land. (hat
respondents assistance consisted in preparing
and notari3ing the documents of sale. (hat the
said sale is illegal because the property is still the
sub&ect of reconstitution and e*tra2&udicial
settlement among the heirs. (hat respondent too'advantage of her being a lawyer to solicit the trust
and confidence of the buyers of the said property.
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
18/32
0n her defense, the respondent denied herinvolvement in the preparation of documents
and the consummation of the allege sale.
(hat her only participation was that she was
the one who notari3ed the deed of sale on
account that she was re4uested by the
parties to notari3e the same because they
cannot afford the notarial fee being chargedby the notary public they earlier approached.
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
19/32
C!5s Ruling6
(he C! observed that respondent violated theprovisions of "ection %7% of the Revised
!dministrative Code as well as "ection , Chapter
800 of the 9anual for Cler's of Court when she
notari3ed a deed of conveyance, a document which
is not connected with the e*ercise of her official
functions and duties as e*2officio notary public.
0ssue6
:hether or not respondent violated the "upremeCourt Circular 12;
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
20/32
Held:
Indeed, the respondent violated the aforesaidprovisions and thereby abusing her authority to do so.Under these provisions, Clerk of Court are notariespublic ex-officio, and may thus notarize documents or
administer oaths but only when the matter is related tothe exercise of their official functions. As we held inAstorga vs. Solas, clerks of court should not, in theirex-officio capacity, take part in the execution of privatedocuments bearing no relation at all to their official
functions. In the present case, it is not withinrespondents competence as it is not part of her officialfunction and duty to notarize the subject deed of sale.
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
21/32
(0N, et al vs. "pouses !=-0N et al
"ps. !4uino filed a complaint for enforcement of
contract and damages against >ustria2 the owner of the
sub&ect property located in Dasol Pangasinan.
)ventually, both parties entered into a compromise
agreement to which "ps. !4uino agreed to grant
>ustria the right to repurchase after the lapse of ?
years. >ustria died, petitioners substituted their father.
(hey attempted to repurchase the property. (he sps.
!4uino opposed and further averred that their fathersold its right to repurchase the property in a deed of
sale, to which they presented two witnesses, one is De
@rancia, an instrumental witness to the instrument and
Judge Cario, who notari3ed the said instrument.
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
22/32
The sps Aquino, offered the document as evidence but
the RTC refused to admit such. The RTC expresseddoubt as to the authenticity of the deed of sale, thatthe testimony of De Francia and Judge Cario areconflicting. The RTC further observed that nowhere inthe alleged deed of sale was there any statement that it
was acknowledged by Bustria. Sps. Aquino appealedto the CA the said decision of the RTC, to which itreversed the decision of the lower court. It ruled that,there were no material or substantial inconsistenciesbetween the testimonies of Cario and De Francia thatwould taint the document as doubtful. That a notarizeddocument carried in its favor the presumption ofregularity with respect to its execution.
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
23/32
0ssue6:hether or not the C! erred in its
decision that there was no
violation committed by Judge
Cario with regard to "upreme
Court Circular 12;
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
24/32
Held:
The CA erred in reversing the decision of theRTC with regard to appreaciating the authenticityof the said instrument. It is undisputed that Carioat the time of notarization of the deed of sale,
was a sitting judge of the Metropolitan TrialCourt of Alaminos. Petitioner point out citingTabao vs. Asis, that municipal judges may notundertake the preparation and acknowldgement
of private documents, contracts and other acts ofconveyance which bear no relation to theperformance of their functions as Judges.
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
25/32
Cario claimed that the prohibition took effect only in
December 1989, or 4 years after the deed of sale wasnotarized by him. Supreme Court ruled that this iserroneous. As far back as 1980 in Borre vs. Moya, thecourt explicitly declared that municipal court judgessuch as Cario may notarize only documents connected
with the exercise of their official duties. The deed ofsale was not connected with any official duties ofJudge Cario, and there was no reason for him tonotarize it. The supreme court further held that:
“a notary ex-officio should not compete with privatelaw practitioners or regular notaries in transactinglegal conveyancing business.”
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
26/32
)RN09 @-)N()" vs. J-D) R9-!D
>-N, 9C(C, (alibon2atafe, >ohol
Petitioner alleges that he is one of the 9 heirs of theirfather, who owned an agricultural land, and thatrespondent judge prepared and notarized an extra-judicialpartition with simultaneous absolute deed of sale of thesaid agricultural land executed by their mother, and theirattorney-in-fact Alejandro Fuentes, acting on his behalfand on behalf of his siblings including the petitioner. Itwas later found out that the Special Power of Attorney
granted by petitioner to his brother is to mortgage onlythe said land and not to partition, much more to sell thesame. That respondent Judge notarized the document ex-officio notary public, thereby abusing his discretion andauthority as well as committing graft and corruption.
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
27/32
Respondent judge contended that he could not be charged ofgraft and corruption, since in a municipality where a notary
public is unavailable, a municipal judge is allowed to notarizedocuments or deeds ex-officio notary public, to support hisclaim, he presented 2 certifications, one from the clerk ofcourt, who certified that no petition for commission and/orrenewal of commission of notary public was granted by the
said court for the calendar year 1996 and no appointment asnotary public was issued for that year, and the other was fromthe Mayor of Talibon Bohol who also certified that no notarypublic was staying or residing in the municipality during theyear 1996.
OCA in its decision states that respondent judge lacks theauthority to prepare and notarize the document which had nodirect relation to the performance of his official functions as ajudge.
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
28/32
Issue:
Whether or not respondent judge violatedthe Supreme Court Circular 1-90 and therules on Notarial Practice
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
29/32
Held:The supreme court held that respondentjudge violated the circular 1-90 and the ruleson notarial practice. While Section 76 of RA
296 as amended, and Section 242 of theRevised Administrative Code, authorize theMTC and MCTC judges to perform thefunction of notaries public ex-officio, the
court laid down the scope of said authority,which reads:
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
30/32
“However, the Court taking judicial notice of the fact thatthere are still municipalities which have neither lawyers nor
notaries public, rules that MTC and MCTC judges assigned tomunicipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries publicmay, in the capacity as notaries public ex officio, perform anyact within the competency of a regular notary public: Provided,That:
[1] all notarial fees charged be for the account of theGovernment and turned over to the municipal treasurer(Lapena, Jr. vs. Marcos, Adm. Matter No. 1969-MJ, June 29,1982, 114 SCRA 572); and
[2] certification be made in the notarized documents attestingto the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipalityor circuit."
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
31/32
In the case at bar, there was no certification made to the lackof any lawyer or notary public in the extra-judicial partitionwith simultaneous deed of sale which the respondent judgeadmitted that he prepared both the document which is clearlyproscribed by the aforesaid circular. Respondent judge failedto indicate in his answer as whether any notarial fee wascharged for that transaction and if so, whether the sum wasturned over to the municipal treasurer.
Clearly, the respondent judge, who was sitting judge of theMCTC, failed to comply with the aforesaid conditionsprescribed by the the SC Circular 1-90, even if he could have
acted as notary public ex-officio in the absence of any lawyeror notary public in the municipality or circuit to which he wasassigned.
8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt
32/32
T:#%;