FIRST DIVISION
A.M. No. RTJ-15-2406 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3638-RTJ], February 18, 2015
BENITO B. NATE, Complainant, v. JUDGE LELU P. CONTRERAS, BRANCH 43, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, VIRAC, CATANDUANES (THEN CLERK OF COURT, RTC-IRIGA CITY), Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
SERENO, C.J.:
to administer all oaths and affirmations provided for by law, in all matters incident to his notarial office, and in the execution of affidavits, depositions, and other documents requiring an oath, and to receive the proof or acknowledgment of all writings relating to commerce or navigation x x x, and such other writings as are commonly proved or acknowledged before notaries; to act as a magistrate, in the writing of affidavits or depositions, and to make declarations and certify the truth thereof under his seal of office, concerning all matters done by him by virtue of his office.13 (Emphases supplied)One of the main reasons why these public officers were allowed to perform any notarial act was that there were still rural areas in the country that did not have regular notaries public.14 While some areas had notaries, not all of them kept regular office hours.15 Thus, residents of these communities had to travel to the provincial capital or to larger towns where they could find lawyers who also practiced as notaries.16 Consequently, in the interest of public service and in order for the people to have a more convenient and less expensive option, these public officers were appointed ex officio notaries public with the authority to perform any act within the competency of regular notaries public.17 As such, their services and the notarial fees they charged were for the account of the government.18chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1. CLERKS OF COURTProceeding now to the first act complained about, we agree with the OCA findings that respondent’s act of affixing her signature to the jurat portion of the administrative complaint prepared by her father had no direct relation to her work as the then clerk of court of RTC–Iriga City. Under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the proceedings involving the disbarment and discipline of attorneys shall be conducted before the IBP.34 This means that clerks of court are not among the touchpoints in the regular procedure pertaining to complaints against an attorney. Neither may a pleading in a case involving lawyers be filed with the RTC.
1.1. Office of the Clerk of Court of a Multiple Sala Court
1.1.1. Clerk of Court
1.1.1.1. is the administrative officer of the Court under the supervision of the Executive Judge; 1.1.1.2. has control and supervision over his personnel, all properties and supplies in his office; 1.1.1.3. acts on applications for leave of absence and signs daily time records of his staff, as well as the security and janitorial service personnel; 1.1.1.4. determines docket fees; 1.1.1.5. assists in the raffle of cases to the branches and judicial notices/summons to accredited publishers; 1.1.1.6. issues clearances in appropriate cases; 1.1.1.7. acts as ex-officio notary public; 1.1.1.8. acts as ex-officio sheriff; 1.1.1.9. represents the Court in administrative dealings with the local government units and other agencies; and 1.1.1.10. performs and discharges such duties as may be assigned by the Executive Judge.
Endnotes:
1See also Republic Act No. (R.A.) 5261 – An Act Creating the City of Iriga. Section 76 thereof provides: Clerk and Employees of the City Court. — There shall be a clerk of the city court who x x x shall have the power to administer oaths and shall perform the duties of a notary public ex-officio.
2 R.A. 6713 (1989), Sec. 7(b)(2).
3 A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC (2004).
4 A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (2004).
5See Complaint of Benjamin E. Contreras, Annex A of Nate’s Complaint, rollo, pp. 5-7. See also Contreras v. Nate, A.C. No. 6089, 22 September 2010, rollo (A.C. No. 6089), p. 20. Respondent therein (now complainant in this case) Atty. Benito B. Nate was suspended from the practice of law for six months; and OCA Circular No. 02-2011 – Suspension from the Practice of Law for Six (6) Months of Atty. Benito B. Nate, 5 January 2011.
6See Amended Complaint of Daisy R. Contreras, Annex B of Nate’s Complaint, rollo, pp. 8-9.
7See Minutes and Transcript of the hearing before the IBP–Commission on Bar Discipline, Annexes C & D of Nate’s Complaint, rollo, pp. 10-12.
8 A.M. 04-2-117-RTC – Re: Request of Atty. Lelu P. Contreras, Clerk of Court VI, Regional Trial Court, Iriga City, to appear as counsel for and in behalf of her father, 5 April 2004, first attachment to Contreras’s Comment, rollo, p. 33.
9 As amended by R.A. 9406 (2007), this section provides: “Officers Authorized to Administer Oath. — The following officers have general authority to administer oaths: x x x clerks of court; x x x.”
10 As amended by R.A. 9406 (2007), this section provides: “Duty to Administer Oaths. — 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 or in relation to their functions as such; x x x.”
11 The Manual provides as follows: “D. GENERAL FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF CLERKS OF COURT AND OTHER COURT PERSONNEL. 1. CLERKS OF COURT. 1.1. Office of the Clerk of Court of a Multiple Sala Court. 1.1.1 Clerk of Court. x x x x. 1.1.1.7. acts as ex-officio notary public.”
12See R.A. 296 (The Judiciary Act of 1948), Sec. 76, as originally enacted. It provides: “A justice of the peace shall have power anywhere within his territorial jurisdiction to solemnize marriages, authenticate merchant's books, administer oaths and take depositions and acknowledgment, and, in his capacity as ex-officio notary public, may perform any act within the competency of a notary public.”; Lapena v. Marcos, 200 Phil. 69 (1982); and Act. No. 2711 – Revised Administrative Code of 1917, Chap. 11, Title IV – The Notarial Law, Secs. 235, 242 & 243 (hereinafter The Notarial Law). According to Sec. 242: “Officers acting as notaries public ex officio. — Except as otherwise specially provided, the following officials, and none other, shall be deemed to be notaries public ex officio, and as such they are authorized to perform, within the limits of their territorial jurisdiction as herein below defined, all the duties appertaining to the office of notary public x x x”; Borre v. Moya, 188 Phil. 362 (1980).
13 The Notarial Law, Sec. 241.
14 See Lapena v. Marcos, supra note 12; A.M. No. 89-11-1303 MTC –Re: Request for Clarification on the Power of Municipal Trial Court Judges and Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judges to Act as Notaries Public Ex Officio, 19 December 1989; The Notarial Law, Sec. 233.
15 See Lapena v. Marcos, supra note 12; The Notarial Law, Sec. 233.
16 See Lapena v. Marcos, supra note 12.
17 Id.
18 Id. See The Notarial Law of 1917, Sec. 252.
19Borre v. Moya, supra note 12. See A.M. No. 89-11-1303 MTC – Re: Request for Clarification on the Power to Act as Notaries Public Ex Officio, supra note 14; and S.C. Circular No. 1-90 – Power of the Municipal Trial Court Judges and Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judges to Act as Notaries Public Ex Officio, 26 February 1990.
20Gabon v. Merka, A.M. No. P-11-3000, 29 November 2011, 661 SCRA 505; Leyrit v. Solas, A.M. No. P-08-2567, 30 October 2009, 604 SCRA 668; Fuentes v. Buno, 582 Phil. 20 (2008); Cruz v. Centron, 484 Phil. 671 (2004); Quiñones v. Lopez, 449 Phil. 1 (2003); Astorga v. Solas, 413 Phil. 558 (2001); Ellert v. Galapon, 391 Phil. 456 (2000); Tabao v. Asis, 322 Phil. 630 (1996); Rudas v. Acedo, 317 Phil. 283 (1995); Penera v. Dalocanog, 191 Phil. 511 (1981); Borre v. Moya, supra note 12.
21Fuentes v. Buno, supra; Batic v. Galapon, 503 Phil. 5 (2005); Cruz v. Centron, supra; Quiñones v. Lopez, supra; Ellert v. Galapon, supra; Penera v. Dalocanog, supra; A.M. No. 89-11-1303 MTC – Re: Request for Clarification on the Power to Act as Notaries Public Ex Officio, supra note 14.
22Gabon v. Merka, supra note 20; Leyrit v. Solas, supra note 20; Tabao v. Asis, supra note 20.
23Quiñones v. Lopez, supra note 20.
24Tabao v. Asis, supra note 20 (cited in Astorga v. Solas, supra note 20); Rudas v. Acedo, supra note 20.
25Ellert v. Galapon, supra note 20.
26Leyrit v. Solas, supra note 20.
27Ellert v. Galapon, supra note 20; Penera v. Dalocanog, supra note 20.
28Batic v. Galapon, supra note 21; Quiñones v. Lopez, supra note 20; Villareal v. Diongzon, 399 Phil. 22 (2000); Ellert v. Galapon, supra note 20; Balayon v. Ocampo, A.M. No. MTJ-91-619, 29 January 1993, 218 SCRA 13.
29Batic v. Galapon, supra note 21; Villareal v. Diongzon, supra; Ellert v. Galapon, supra note 20.
30Gabon v. Merka, supra note 20; Cruz v. Centron, supra note 20; Astorga v. Solas, supra note 20.
31 A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, 6 July 2004.
32 A.M. No. 89-11-1303 MTC – Re: Request for Clarification on the Power to Act as Notaries Public Ex Officio, supra note 14; S.C. Circular No. 1-90, supra note 19 (citing Lapena v. Marcos, supra note 12); see Fuentes v. Buno, supra note 20; Gravela v. Villanueva, 444 Phil. 109 (2003); Astorga v. Solas, supra note 20; Abadilla v. Tabiliran, 319 Phil. 572 (1995).
33 Vol. I, pp. 4-5.
34 RULES OF COURT, Rule 139-B, Sec. 1 (as amended) provides: How Instituted. — Proceedings for the disbarment, suspension, or discipline of attorneys may be taken by the Supreme Court motu proprio, or by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) upon the verified complaint of any person. The complaint shall state clearly and concisely the facts complained of and shall be supported by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts therein alleged and/or by such documents as may substantiate said facts. x x x x. Six (6) copies of the verified complaint shall be filed with the Secretary of the IBP or the Secretary of any of its chapters who shall forthwith transmit the same to the IBP Board of Governors for assignment to an investigator.
35Gabon v. Merka, supra note 20; Leyrit v. Solas, supra note 20; Quiñones v. Lopez, supra note 20 (citing Borre v. Moya, supra note 12); Astorga v. Solas, supra note 20; Penera v. Dalocanog, supra note 20.
36 This principle was restated in the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, Canon III, Sec. 5.
37 The provision reads: “In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and transactions of any public official and employee and are hereby declared to be unlawful: x x x (b) Outside employment and other activities related thereto. – Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not: x x x (2) Engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions; x x x.”
38 According to the provision: “In addition to the grounds for administrative disciplinary action prescribed under existing laws, the acts and omissions of any official or employee, whether or not he holds office or employment in a casual, temporary, hold-over, permanent or regular capacity, declared unlawful or prohibited by the Code, shall constitute grounds for administrative disciplinary action, and without prejudice to criminal and civil liabilities provided herein, such as: x x x (c) Engaging in the private practice of his profession unless authorized by the Constitution, law or regulation, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with his official functions x x x.”
39 CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII, Sec. 6.
40 In A.M. No. 12-9-212-RTC – Re: Request of Atty. Rechie N. Ramos-Malabanan, Clerk of Court V, RTC, Branch 16, Manila, for Authority to Appear as Counsel in Two Cases, 16 October 2012 (unreported), the Court granted the request to appear as counsel in the civil case, while denying the request insofar as the criminal case is concerned. In A.M. No. 12-10-21-SC – Re: Request of Atty. Aureo Cyrus C. Lim, Court Attorney III, CMO, OCA, for Authority to Appear as Counsel in INV.-121-07856, 23 October 2012 (unreported), the Court granted the request to appear as counsel during the preliminary investigation stage, but withheld authority in the event that the case proceeds to trial. In the following cases, the Supreme Court denied the respective requests of various court personnel to appear as counsel on behalf of an immediate family member: A.M. No. 14-7-212-RTC – Re: Request of Atty. Ruby Remedios V. Abelgos-Espera, Clerk of Court VI, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, San Jose, Antique, to Appear as Counsel in Criminal Case No. 2013-12-8423, 5 August 2014 (unreported); A.M. No. 10-2-18-MCTC – Re: Request of Judge Edwin B. Buffe, MCTC-San Agustin, Romblon, for Permission to Appear as Counsel in Criminal Case Nos. 4255 and 4256, 2 March 2010 (unreported); A.M. 09-5-229-RTC – Re: Request of Clerk of Court VI Raymundo A. Ramirez, RTC, Iligan, Isabela, to Appear as Counsel for his Sister and Brother-in-Law in Criminal Case No. 7535, 30 June 2009 (unreported); A.M. No. 02-5-06-SB – Re: Request of Atty. Jacinto M. de la Cruz, Jr. to Appear as Collaborating Counsel for his Brother Jack M. de la Cruz in Criminal Case No. T-2689 (People v. Jack M. de la Cruz), 28 May 2002 (unreported).
41See CONSTITUTION, Art. 8, Sec. 6; and Rules Implementing the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, Rule X, Sec. 1(c). See e.g., A.M. No. 09-5-96-MTCC – Re: Request of Judge Alandrex M. Betoya, MTCC, Branch 1, Pagadian City to Appear as Counsel for His Mother in Criminal Case No. 0903, 9 June 2009 (unreported); A.M. No. 09-4-182-RTC – Re: Request of Atty. Virginia Coloma-Rafael for Authority to Appear as Counsel in an Administrative Case, 2 June 2009 (unreported); A.M. No. 05-2-14-SC – Re: Request of Atty. Bernadette Anne A. Villa, Court Attorney VI, Office of the Chief Justice, to Appear as Counsel of her Mother, 25 February 2005 (unreported); A.M. No. 03-11-05-SC – Re: Request of Atty. Gualberto J. Oyzon, Court Attorney I, CTA, to Appear as Counsel for and in behalf of his Brother, 25 November 2003 (unreported); A.M. No. 03-11-24-SC – Re: Request of Atty. Marife Lynn O. Pascua, Sandiganbayan, to Appear as Collaborating Counsel in Civil Case No. 03-0517-CFM, 25 November 2003 (unreported).
42See A.M. No. 04-2-117-RTC – Re: Request of Atty. Lelu P. Contreras, supra note 8.
43Ellert v. Galapon, supra note 20; Tabao v. Asis, supra note 20.
44Leyrit v. Solas, supra note 20; Astorga v. Solas, supra note 20; Rudas v. Acedo, supra note 20.
45Astorga v. Solas, supra note 20.
46Cruz v. Centron, supra note 20.