Judges Cannot Notarize Private Documents Unrelated to Official Functions

A.M. No. RTJ-95-1330, January 30, 1996

Imagine needing urgent funds for a loved one’s medical expenses. You grant a special power of attorney, but the notary is also a judge. Is that allowed? This case clarifies the limitations on judges acting as notaries public, particularly when private interests are involved. It highlights the ethical and legal boundaries that judicial officers must respect.

Introduction

In Azucena Cinco Tabao and Jesusa Cinco Acosta v. Judge Enrique C. Asis, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of a judge notarizing a private document. The central question was whether a Municipal Trial Court Judge could notarize a Special Power of Attorney unrelated to their official duties. This case serves as a crucial reminder of the separation of powers and the ethical obligations of judicial officers.

Legal Context: Notarial Authority and Judicial Ethics

The authority of judges to perform notarial acts is governed by the Rules of Court and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Section 35, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court, states that no judge or other official or employee of the superior courts shall engage in private practice as a member of the bar or give professional advice to clients. This rule is in place to ensure judges dedicate their full attention to their judicial duties and to prevent conflicts of interest.

Canon 5, Rule 5.07 of the Code of Judicial Conduct reinforces this principle, emphasizing that judges must avoid any activity that detracts from the dignity of their office. Furthermore, the Manual for Clerks of Court specifies that municipal judges can administer oaths or execute certificates only on matters related to their official functions.

For example, a judge can notarize an affidavit required for a case pending before their court. However, they cannot notarize a private contract for the sale of land between two individuals. This distinction is crucial in maintaining the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Section N, Chapter VIII, of the Manual for Clerks of Court further elucidates this by stating that officers authorized to administer oaths, with the exception of notaries public, municipal judges and clerks of court, are not obliged to administer oaths or execute certificates save in matters of official business.

Case Breakdown: The Double Notarization

The case revolves around Judge Enrique C. Asis, who notarized a Special Power of Attorney for Mariquita M. Cinco-Jocson, which allowed her sister, Cirila Cinco-Caintic, to sell a property. The complainants, Azucena Cinco Tabao and Jesusa Cinco Acosta, argued that this act was a gross irregularity and abuse of authority.

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

• Mariquita M. Cinco-Jocson, while confined in a hospital, needed to grant a Special Power of Attorney to her sister, Cirila Cinco-Caintic, to sell a property.
• The Special Power of Attorney and an Affidavit of Consciousness were initially notarized by Notary Public Flaviano V. Caintic on June 3, 1992.
• Subsequently, Judge Asis notarized the same documents on July 23, 1992.
• Judge Asis claimed he did so out of “christian charity” and without receiving payment.

The Supreme Court found Judge Asis’s actions problematic, stating:

“Clearly, therefore, there was no need for respondent to further notarize the documents. What for, it may be asked. Respondent Judge should know, if he does not, that a notarized document executed by a party alone -and not by two (2) or more parties executing the document in different places – does not need to be notarized twice.”

The Court emphasized the prohibition against judges engaging in private practice, quoting Omico Mining and Industrial Corporation v. Vallejos:

“This rule makes it obligatory upon the judicial officers concerned to give their full time and attention to their judicial duties, prevent them from extending special favors for their own private interests and assure the public of impartiality in the performance of their functions.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court found Judge Asis administratively liable and fined him P10,000.

Practical Implications: Upholding Judicial Integrity

This case reinforces the principle that judges must adhere to a strict code of conduct to maintain the integrity of the judiciary. It clarifies that while municipal judges can act as notaries public ex-officio, this is limited to documents connected with their official functions. They cannot notarize private documents unless they are in far-flung municipalities without lawyers or notaries public, and even then, all fees must go to the government.

Consider this scenario: A judge is asked by a friend to notarize a contract for the sale of a car. Even if the judge offers to do it for free, this would still be a violation of judicial ethics. The judge must decline to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

Key Lessons

• Judges are generally prohibited from engaging in private notarial work.
• Notarizing private documents unrelated to official functions is a violation of judicial ethics.
• The exception for judges in remote municipalities requires that all fees be remitted to the government.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: Can a judge notarize a document for a family member?

A: Generally, no. Notarizing private documents, even for family members, can create a conflict of interest and violate judicial ethics.

Q: What happens if a judge violates the rules on notarial practice?

A: A judge who violates these rules may face administrative sanctions, including fines, suspension, or even dismissal from service.

Q: Are there any exceptions to the rule against judges notarizing private documents?

A: Yes, in far-flung municipalities without lawyers or notaries public, MTC and MCTC judges may act as notaries public ex-officio, provided all fees are turned over to the municipal treasurer and a certification is made attesting to the lack of lawyers or notaries in the area.

Q: What should I do if I suspect a judge is improperly engaging in notarial practice?

A: You can file a complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator of the Supreme Court.

Q: Why is it important for judges to avoid private notarial practice?

A: To maintain the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, prevent conflicts of interest, and ensure that judges dedicate their full attention to their judicial duties.

ASG Law specializes in civil law, criminal law, and corporate law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.