THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-01-1484. July 17, 2001]
EXECUTIVE JUDGE JOSE R. ASTORGA, complainant, vs. NICOLASITO
S. SOLAS, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Iloilo City, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
VITUG,
J.:
In a letter-complaint,
dated 05 July 1996, former Executive Judge Jose R. Astorga of the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities ("MTCC"), Iloilo City, charged respondent Clerk
of Court, Nicolasito Solas, of MTCC, Iloilo City, with various irregularities
in the performance of his duties.
Complainant averred that,
on 25 June 1996, a voucher for payment or withdrawal of cash bond deposit,
along with an accomplished Land Bank of the Philippines Check No. 17728546, was
presented to him for his signature and release. Noticing that the voucher was signed by Judge Nelida Medina only
on 25 June 1996 but that the check was by then already signed on and dated 18
June 1996 by respondent, Judge Astorga disapproved the voucher and the release
of the check. The check (of 18 June
1996) was thereafter canceled and, on 01 July 1996, replaced by a new check. Complainant also stated that respondent
unduly acted as a Notary Public; attached to the complaint were photocopies of
private documents notarized by respondent.
Complainant said that he had called the attention of respondent several
times on this matter but the latter still continued to notarize documents not
related to his official functions.
In his comment,
respondent denied having committed any irregularity in signing LBP Check No.
17728546 prior to the preparation of the voucher. He maintained that he did not falsify the check and that no one
was prejudiced by his action.
Respondent claimed that the complaint was filed merely to favor the
assistant clerk of court, Ma. Theresa Zerrudo, a close associate of
complainant. He denied having
improperly acted in occasionally administering oaths which he considered to be
part of his functions under the Manual for Clerks of Court.
The Court, in its
Resolution of 19 November 1997, referred the case to Executive Judge Severino
C. Aguilar of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 35, for investigation,
report and recommendation.
During the pendency of
the case, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines ("IBP"), Iloilo City,
through its Board of Directors, filed on 19 January 1998 a Petition before the
Office of the Court Administrator to enjoin respondent from notarizing and
administering oaths on documents that had no relation to his official
duties. In the "1st Indorsement"
of Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida Elepaņo, the petition of the IBP was
referred to Judge Aguilar for inclusion in his investigation of "OCA-IPI
No. 96-194-P, entitled `Judge Jose R. Astorga vs. Nicolasito Solas.'"
After a series of
conferences, the investigating judge recommended, in his "order" of
30 July 1998, to have the instant administrative matter considered closed and
terminated, with a warning that a repetition by respondent of his questioned
conduct could warrant a drastic action from the Office of the Executive Judge. In his order, the investigating judge took
into account the letter, dated 08 July 1998, of respondent expressing remorse
over an "honest mistake" in signing the check even prior to the
preparation of the voucher. Respondent apologized
for the inconvenience he had caused Judge Astorga. The order contained the conformity of complainant and his
acceptance of respondent's apology. The
investigating judge explained that he issued the order as being a move to
restore cordial relationship between Judge Astorga and respondent.
Relative to the petition
of the IBP, the investigating judge issued an order, dated 19 February 1998, to
the effect that based on an agreement with the Iloilo City IBP, represented by
its President Atty. Von Lovel Bedina, respondent would discontinue his practice
of notarizing documents and administering oaths on matters not related to his
official function as a clerk of court.
Thus, he felt, no sanction need yet be imposed on respondent.
The Office of the Court
Administrator ("OCA"), in its memorandum, of 11 December 2000, gave
its own assessment of the case.
On the issue of the
premature signing of Land Bank Check No. 17728546, the OCA found that indeed
respondent had acted in good faith and that, in any case, there was no
prejudice that resulted to anyone.
Insofar as the charge of
notarizing documents and administering oaths unrelated to his office,
respondent was recommended by the OCA to be sanctioned by an imposition of a
P5,000.00 fine with a warning that a repetition of the same offense would be
dealt with more severely, citing Section N, Chapter VIII, Manual for Clerk of
Court -
"DUTY TO ADMINISTER OATH - Officers authorized to administer oaths, with the exception of notaries public, municipal judges and clerks of court, are not obliged to administer oath or execute certificates save in matters of official business; and with the exception of notaries public, the offices performing the service in those matters shall charge no fee, unless specifically authorized by law."
The Court accepts the
findings and recommendations of the OCA.
The OCA was convinced
that the signing of Land Bank Check No. 17728546 prior to the preparation of
the voucher was done in good faith and no one was prejudiced thereby. The Court, nevertheless, would still remind
respondent to follow regular procedure in future transactions of this nature.
In respect to the other
charge, respondent acted imprudently in notarizing documents and administering
oath on matters alien to his official duties.
The Resolution, dated 18 December 1990, of the Court En Banc on
Administrative Matter No. 90-10-1498-MTC (Letter-query of Clerk of Court II,
Bonifacio D. Paguirigan, MTC, Aparri, Cagayan) stated thusly:
"This refers to an inquiry of Bonifacio D. Paguirigan on whether he as Clerk of Court of the Municipal Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan can administer oath of affidavits of parties and witnesses which are to be filed in court. Under Section 21 of the Administrative Code of 1917, the general authority to administer oaths given to Clerks of Court was limited to Clerks of Court of the First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) and the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, Section 41 of the Administrative Code of 1987 amending Sec. 21 of the Administrative Code of 1917 was however, amended by Republic Act No. 6788 approved on July 25, 1989, to read:
"'Sec. 41. Officers Authorized to Administer Oath. - The following officers have general authority to administer oaths: President; Vice-President; Members and Secretaries of both Houses of the Congress; Members of the Judiciary; Secretaries of Departments; Provincial governors and lieutenant-governors; city mayors; municipal mayors; bureau directors; regional directors; clerk of court; registrars of deeds; other civilian officers in public service of the government of the Philippines whose appointments are vested in the President and are subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments; all other constitutional officers; and notaries public.'
"From the above quoted provision, the term `clerk of courts' is used as a general term. No specification was made as to the court to which said clerks of courts belong. The intention of the law is clear, to remove the limitation, and hence, to authorize all clerks of courts regardless of whether they are clerks of the Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, to administer oaths on matter involving official business."
Clerks 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. 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. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact
that Iloilo City is a highly urbanized city and obviously not a far-flung
municipality which has neither lawyers nor notaries public to possibly here
warrant an exceptional rule.
The Court in a number of
cases has sanctioned members of the Bench in notarizing documents unrelated to
the proper discharge of their offices.
In Tabao vs. Asis,[1] the Court imposed upon a judge a fine of
P10,000.00 for notarizing a Special Power of Attorney; still, in another case,
the Court fined a judge in the amount of P5,000.00 when he notarized a pleading
filed before the Department of Agrarian Reform and Adjudication Board (DARAB).[2]
WHEREFORE, the Court, finding Nicolasito Solas, Clerk
of Court of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Iloilo City, guilty of abuse
of authority, hereby imposes the OCA recommended FINE of Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00) with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the
future will be dealt with severely.
SO ORDERED.
Melo (Chairman), and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Gonzaga-Reyes, and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., on leave.