Lf Report Ppt

8/17/2019 Lf Report Ppt

1/32

EX-OFFICIO

NOTARIES PUBLIC


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)


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


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].


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:


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.


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.


8/32

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:


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


16/32

CASES


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.


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.


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;


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.


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.


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.


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;


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.


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.”


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.


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.


28/32

Issue:

Whether or not respondent judge violatedthe Supreme Court Circular 1-90 and therules on Notarial Practice


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:


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."


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.


32/32

T:#%;

Lf Report Ppt

Documents

Transcript of Lf Report Ppt