EX-OFFICIO

NOTARIES PUBLIC

Who are the Ex-Officio

Notaries Public?

By virtue of the SC Circular the following are the

Ex-Officio Notaries Public:

a. Municipal Trial Court Judges

b. Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judges

c. Clerks of Court (under the 2002 Revised

Manual for Clerks of Court)

They may act as Notaries Public ex

officio in the notarization of documents
connected only with the exercise of
their official functions and duties [Borne
v. Mayo, Adm. Matter No. 1765-CFI, October
17, 1980. 100 SCRA 314; Penera v.
Dalocanog, Adm. Matter No. 2113-MJ, April
22, 1981, 104 SCRA 193.]

Except.
They may not, as Notaries Public ex officio,
undertake the preparation and acknowledgment
of private documents, contracts and other acts of
conveyances which bear no direct relation to the
performance of their functions as judges. The
1989 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 5
and Rule 5.07].

Exception to the
Exception
The Court taking judicial notice of the fact
that there are still municipalities which have
neither lawyers nor notaries public, rules that
MTC and MCTC judges assigned to
municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or
notaries public may, in the capacity as
notaries public ex officio, perform any act
within the competency of a regular notary
public: Provided, That:

[1] all notarial fees charged be for the

account of the Government 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 attesting to the lack of any lawyer
or notary public in such municipality or
circuit.

GUIDELINES RELATIVE TO PRINTING AND

DISTRIBUTION OF NOTARIAL BOOKS, 2004 RULES ON
NOTARIAL 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, Office of the Administrative Services of the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
2.Notaries public in other judicial regions shall secure
their notarial registers from the Office of the Clerk of
Court (OCC) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the
city or province under the supervision of the
Executive Judge who issued their respective notarial
commissions. However, they may also secure notarial
registers from the Office of the Court Administrator.

3. Notarial registers shall be available at P1,200.00

each. Said amount shall cover only the costs of
printing 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 the
Clerk of Court/accountable officer in the OCC of the
RTC, as the case may be:

a.The amount collected shall be receipted and deposited

to a separate account of the fiduciary fund to be known
as the Notarial Register Fund (NRF).
b. The Cash Division, FMO, OCA, shall maintain with the
Land Bank of the Philippines a separate special account
of the fiduciary fund specifically for the NRF. A separate
cashbook shall also be kept and maintained for the fund.
Withdrawals of deposits shall be made only upon
authorization or approval by the Chief Justice or his duly
authorized representative.
c. The Court Administrator and the Financial Office of the
OCA shall be the authorized signatories for this fund.

4. In view of the current unavailability of

notarial registers, notaries public shall be
allowed to use the temporary form attached
hereto. The notary public concerned shall file a
written request to use the improvised form with
the executive judge that issued his
commission. A copy of his current
commission shall be attached to such request.

The notaries public who have been authorized to use such

forms shall have them book-bound and initialed on each and
every page by the executive judge before whom the request
was filed. Each bound copy shall have a maximum of 106
pages and shall be treated and used in the same manner as
the new notarial book.
Each request shall be limited to one bound copy. Should
the bound copy be used up before the new notarial books
are available, the notary public concerned may request
anew for the use of bound temporary forms. The use of
bound temporary forms shall end when the new notarial
books are available but, upon written request, the executive
judge may allow the notary public to use up the bound
temporary forms.

5. The OCA shall, within the first ten

(10) days of the first month of every
quarter remit to the Office of the
Solicitor General an amount
equivalent to 10% of the gross
collections during the preceding
quarter as the share of the OSG in
the sale of the notarial registers.

6. The printed certification of the Court Administrator

as to the number of pages of each notarial register
shall be countersigned by the following:
a.In the National Capital Judicial Region, the official
of the Office of the Court Administrator authorized
by 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 or
province where such book has been obtained for
cost.

7. The Supreme Court Printing Office shall print the

notarial registers. In the event the Printing Office
cannot meet the requirements of the OCA, and
subject to Republic Act No. 9184 (Government
Procurement Reform Act), its implementing rules
and regulations, and existing Supreme Court
issuances on procurement, the Court Administrator
may contract out the printing of notarial registers to
the following printers in the following order:
a. UP Printing Services
b. The National Printing Office, or
c. Private printing firm

The OCA shall resort to the third option

only if the first two printers can not
accommodate the requirements of the
Court. After the approval by the Court of
these
guidelines,
the
OCA
shall
disseminate the same through a circular.

CASES

ARNEL CRUZ vs. ATTY. LUNINGNING CENTRON,

Acting Clerk of Court, RTC-OCC, Calapan City
Cruz-complainant alleges that Atty. Centron
assisted a certain Logdat and De la Cruz in
consummating the sale of a parcel of land. That
respondents assistance consisted in preparing
and notarizing the documents of sale. That the
said sale is illegal because the property is still the
subject of reconstitution and extra-judicial
settlement among the heirs. That respondent took
advantage of her being a lawyer to solicit the trust
and confidence of the buyers of the said property.

In her defense, the respondent denied her

involvement in the preparation of documents
and the consummation of the allege sale.
That her only participation was that she was
the one who notarized the deed of sale on
account that she was requested by the
parties to notarize the same because they
cannot afford the notarial fee being charged
by the notary public they earlier approached.

OCAs Ruling:
The OCA observed that respondent violated the
provisions of Section 242 of the Revised
Administrative Code as well as Section G, Chapter
VII of the Manual for Clerks of Court when she
notarized a deed of conveyance, a document which
is not connected with the exercise of her official
functions and duties as ex-officio notary public.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent violated the Supreme
Court Circular 1-90, which resulted to her abuse of
authority.

Held:
Indeed, the respondent violated the aforesaid
provisions and thereby abusing her authority to do so.
Under these provisions, Clerk of Court are notaries
public ex-officio, and may thus notarize documents or
administer oaths but only when the matter is related to
the exercise of their official functions. As we held in
Astorga vs. Solas, clerks of court should not, in their
ex-officio capacity, take part in the execution of private
documents bearing no relation at all to their official
functions. In the present case, it is not within
respondents competence as it is not part of her official
function and duty to notarize the subject deed of sale.

TIGNO, et al vs. Spouses AQUINO et al

Sps. Aquino filed a complaint for enforcement of
contract and damages against Bustria- the owner of the
subject property located in Dasol Pangasinan.
Eventually, both parties entered into a compromise
agreement to which Sps. Aquino agreed to grant
Bustria the right to repurchase after the lapse of 7
years. Bustria died, petitioners substituted their father.
They attempted to repurchase the property. The sps.
Aquino opposed and further averred that their father
sold its right to repurchase the property in a deed of
sale, to which they presented two witnesses, one is De
Francia, an instrumental witness to the instrument and
Judge Cario, who notarized the said instrument.

The sps Aquino, offered the document as evidence but

the RTC refused to admit such. The RTC expressed
doubt as to the authenticity of the deed of sale, that
the testimony of De Francia and Judge Cario are
conflicting. The RTC further observed that nowhere in
the alleged deed of sale was there any statement that it
was acknowledged by Bustria. Sps. Aquino appealed
to the CA the said decision of the RTC, to which it
reversed the decision of the lower court. It ruled that,
there were no material or substantial inconsistencies
between the testimonies of Cario and De Francia that
would taint the document as doubtful. That a notarized
document carried in its favor the presumption of
regularity with respect to its execution.

Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in its
decision that there was no
violation committed by Judge
Cario with regard to Supreme
Court Circular 1-90, and the rules
on notarial public.

Held:
The CA erred in reversing the decision of the
RTC with regard to appreaciating the authenticity
of the said instrument. It is undisputed that Cario
at the time of notarization of the deed of sale,
was a sitting judge of the Metropolitan Trial
Court of Alaminos. Petitioner point out citing
Tabao vs. Asis, that municipal judges may not
undertake the preparation and acknowldgement
of private documents, contracts and other acts of
conveyance which bear no relation to the
performance of their functions as Judges.

Cario claimed that the prohibition took effect only in

December 1989, or 4 years after the deed of sale was
notarized by him. Supreme Court ruled that this is
erroneous. As far back as 1980 in Borre vs. Moya, the
court explicitly declared that municipal court judges
such as Cario may notarize only documents connected
with the exercise of their official duties. The deed of
sale was not connected with any official duties of
Judge Cario, and there was no reason for him to
notarize it. The supreme court further held that:
a notary ex-officio should not compete with private
law practitioners or regular notaries in transacting
legal conveyancing business.

GERONIMO FUENTES vs. JUDGE ROMUALDO

BUNO, MCTC, Talibon-Gatafe, Bohol

Petitioner alleges that he is one of the 9 heirs of their

father, who owned an agricultural land, and that
respondent judge prepared and notarized an extra-judicial
partition with simultaneous absolute deed of sale of the
said agricultural land executed by their mother, and their
attorney-in-fact Alejandro Fuentes, acting on his behalf
and on behalf of his siblings including the petitioner. It
was later found out that the Special Power of Attorney
granted by petitioner to his brother is to mortgage only
the said land and not to partition, much more to sell the
same. That respondent Judge notarized the document exofficio notary public, thereby abusing his discretion and
authority as well as committing graft and corruption.

Respondent judge contended that he could not be charged of

graft and corruption, since in a municipality where a notary
public is unavailable, a municipal judge is allowed to notarize
documents or deeds ex-officio notary public, to support his
claim, he presented 2 certifications, one from the clerk of
court, who certified that no petition for commission and/or
renewal of commission of notary public was granted by the
said court for the calendar year 1996 and no appointment as
notary public was issued for that year, and the other was from
the Mayor of Talibon Bohol who also certified that no notary
public was staying or residing in the municipality during the
year 1996.
OCA in its decision states that respondent judge lacks the
authority to prepare and notarize the document which had no
direct relation to the performance of his official functions as a
judge.

Issue:
Whether or not respondent judge violated
the Supreme Court Circular 1-90 and the
rules on Notarial Practice

Held:
The supreme court held that respondent
judge violated the circular 1-90 and the rules
on notarial practice. While Section 76 of RA
296 as amended, and Section 242 of the
Revised Administrative Code, authorize the
MTC and MCTC judges to perform the
function of notaries public ex-officio, the
court laid down the scope of said authority,
which reads:

However, the Court taking judicial notice of the fact that

there are still municipalities which have neither lawyers nor
notaries public, rules that MTC and MCTC judges assigned to
municipalities or circuits with no lawyers or notaries public
may, in the capacity as notaries public ex officio, perform any
act within the competency of a regular notary public: Provided,
That:
[1] all notarial fees charged be for the account of the
Government 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 attesting
to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality
or circuit."

In the case at bar, there was no certification made to the lack

of any lawyer or notary public in the extra-judicial partition
with simultaneous deed of sale which the respondent judge
admitted that he prepared both the document which is clearly
proscribed by the aforesaid circular. Respondent judge failed
to indicate in his answer as whether any notarial fee was
charged for that transaction and if so, whether the sum was
turned over to the municipal treasurer.
Clearly, the respondent judge, who was sitting judge of the
MCTC, failed to comply with the aforesaid conditions
prescribed by the the SC Circular 1-90, even if he could have
acted as notary public ex-officio in the absence of any lawyer
or notary public in the municipality or circuit to which he was
assigned.

THANK YOU