In Gravela v. Villanueva, the Supreme Court reiterated that Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges acting as notaries public ex officio must strictly comply with Circular No. 1-90. This means they must certify the lack of lawyers or notaries public in their municipality when notarizing private documents unrelated to their official duties and ensure that all notarial fees are remitted to the municipal treasurer. Failure to observe these requirements can result in administrative sanctions, even if the judge acted in good faith.

When Does ‘Good Faith’ Excuse Violations of Notarial Duty?

This case arose from a complaint filed by Marcelo Gravela against Judge Osmundo M. Villanueva of the MCTC of Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat. Gravela alleged that Judge Villanueva notarized a Deed of Sale involving Gravela’s property, but Gravela claimed he was misrepresented by someone who forged his signature. The core issue was whether Judge Villanueva properly discharged his duties as a notary public ex officio, and whether he violated Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90, which governs the notarial powers of MTC and MCTC judges.

Gravela initially filed charges of falsification and neglect of duty before the Office of the Ombudsman in Mindanao. The Deputy Ombudsman dismissed the falsification charge, finding no probable cause to hold Judge Villanueva liable, as the judge believed the person appearing before him was indeed Marcelo Gravela. However, the Graft Investigation Officer forwarded the neglect of duty charge to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action, given the Supreme Court’s administrative supervision over court employees.

In his defense, Judge Villanueva explained that he made inquiries about the parties and asked for identification. He stated that he only notarized the document after being satisfied that the persons appearing before him were the parties to the Deed of Sale. The Clerk of Court also attested that the judge took pains to ascertain the identities of the parties. While the OCA found no liability for neglect of duty, it concluded that Judge Villanueva violated Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90.

Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90 delineates the scope of notarial powers of MTC and MCTC judges. As a general rule, MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex officio only in the notarization of documents connected with their official functions. An exception exists where the judge is assigned to a municipality with no lawyers or notaries public; in such cases, the judge may perform any act within the competency of a regular notary public, provided that all notarial fees are turned over to the government and certification is made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality. The Court underscored that it was taking judicial notice of the fact that there were municipalities that had neither lawyers nor notaries public.

In this case, the Court found that although Judge Villanueva believed there were no lawyers in his jurisdiction, he failed to include a certification in the notarized document attesting to this fact. This was a violation of Circular No. 1-90. He also failed to indicate that the notarial fees were remitted to the Municipal Treasurer of Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat. The Court acknowledged the judge’s good faith but emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the circular’s requirements.

The Supreme Court concluded that Judge Villanueva’s failure to comply with Circular No. 1-90 warranted disciplinary action. The Court underscored that judges must be diligent in fulfilling their duties and keeping abreast of developments in law and jurisprudence, and must conduct themselves in a manner beyond reproach. In light of these considerations, the Supreme Court found Judge Osmundo M. Villanueva liable and ordered him to pay a fine of P2,000.00, with a warning against future violations. He was further instructed to remit the notarial fees to the Municipal Treasurer.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Judge Villanueva properly discharged his duties as a notary public ex officio, and whether he violated Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90, which governs the notarial powers of MTC and MCTC judges.
What is Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90?	It defines the scope of notarial powers for MTC and MCTC judges, generally limiting it to documents related to their official functions, unless in municipalities without other lawyers.
What are the requirements for MTC/MCTC judges acting as notaries in areas without lawyers?	They must certify the lack of lawyers/notaries in the document and remit all fees to the government.
What was Judge Villanueva’s violation?	He notarized a private document without certifying the absence of lawyers and without remitting fees, violating Circular No. 1-90.
Was good faith a sufficient defense for Judge Villanueva?	No, the Court acknowledged his good faith but still imposed a fine for failing to comply with the Circular’s requirements.
What was the Court’s ruling in this case?	The Supreme Court found Judge Villanueva liable and ordered him to pay a fine of P2,000.00.
Why is it important for judges to be aware of circulars like No. 1-90?	Judges are expected to be diligent in keeping abreast of developments in law and jurisprudence to properly fulfill their duties.
What ethical standard does the Court emphasize for judges?	Judges must conduct themselves in a manner that is beyond reproach and suspicion, avoiding any hint of impropriety.
Can judges notarize any document if they donate the proceeds to charity?	No. They must always comply with Circular 1-90 – private docs only in areas lacking lawyers/notaries.

This case serves as a reminder to all MTC and MCTC judges of their responsibilities when acting as notaries public ex officio. Strict adherence to Circular No. 1-90 is crucial to avoid administrative sanctions and to maintain the integrity of the notarial process.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: GRAVELA v. VILLANUEVA, G.R. No. 47973, January 28, 2003