View full case

VICENTE M. BATIC v. JUDGE VICTORIO L. GALAPON

FACTS:

Three administrative complaints were filed against Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr., of the Municipal Trial Court of Dulag, Leyte. The first complaint was filed by Vicente M. Batic, accusing Judge Galapon of several offenses including graft and corruption, grave abuse of authority, gross ignorance of the law, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Batic alleges that the judge issued a warrant of arrest against him and his co-accused prior to the filing of the complaint. He also accuses Judge Galapon of engaging in unauthorized notarial practice.

The second complaint, filed by Horst Franz Ellert, alleges that Judge Galapon prepared and notarized a Deed of Sale with the incorrect marital status of Lualhati Ellert. Ellert claims that this was done in collusion with Attorney Custodio P. Cañete, with the intention of depriving him of his share in their conjugal properties.

In the third complaint, also filed by Horst Franz Ellert, Judge Galapon is accused of ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and gross negligence for prematurely issuing and signing a warrant of arrest against his wife and Vicente Batic. In response, Judge Galapon explains that he conducted a preliminary examination and found probable cause based on the statements and supporting affidavits of the complainants. He asserts that the warrant of arrest was typed the next day and signed on March 20, 1997.

Judge Galapon argues that he only acknowledged the Deed of Sale and did not prepare it, and believed he had the authority to notarize the document due to the unavailability of a notary public at the time. He also asserts that the complainants have ulterior motives for filing the complaints against him. The Court Administrator found Judge Galapon's explanation regarding the dates in the case records satisfactory, but concluded that he exceeded his authority in acting as a notary public. The Court referred the cases to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban City for investigation, report, and recommendation.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the inconsistency between the dates in the warrant of arrest and the complaint in the criminal case constitutes a violation of the constitutional requirement for probable cause.

  2. Whether the notarization of a Deed of Absolute Sale by the respondent is authorized under the law.

  3. Whether MTC and MCTC judges are authorized to perform notarial functions ex-officio.

  4. Whether MTC and MCTC judges can notarize documents that are not connected to their official duties.

  5. Whether MTC and MCTC judges can act as notaries public ex-officio in municipalities or circuits without lawyers or notaries public.

  6. Whether or not Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. should be held liable for the issuance of a warrant of arrest.

  7. Whether or not Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. should be held liable for unauthorized notarization of a private document.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that the discrepancy between the dates in the warrant of arrest and the complaint was a procedural lapse committed in good faith and did not prejudice the rights of the complainants. The warrant of arrest was issued after a preliminary examination and finding of probable cause, and the complaint was received by the court before the warrant was issued. Therefore, the complaints should be dismissed with regard to the issuance of the warrant of arrest.

  2. The Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that the respondent judge should be held accountable for the unauthorized notarization of the Deed of Absolute Sale. The authority of municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court judges to act as notaries public ex-officio is limited to the notarization of documents connected with the exercise of their official functions. The respondent's act of notarizing a private document exceeded the scope of his authority. Consequently, the respondent should be fined the amount of Eleven Thousand Pesos (P11,000) for his unauthorized notarial work.

  3. MTC and MCTC judges are authorized to perform notarial functions ex-officio under Section 76 of Republic Act No. 296 and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code.

  4. MTC and MCTC judges can only notarize documents connected to their official duties. They cannot undertake the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts, and other acts of conveyances that are not directly related to their functions as judges.

  5. MTC and MCTC judges assigned to municipalities or circuits without lawyers or notaries public may act as notaries public ex-officio, provided that all notarial fees charged are for the government's account and turned over to the municipal treasurer, and a certification is made in the notarized documents attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such municipality or circuit.

  6. The complaints filed against Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. with respect to the issuance of a warrant of arrest are DISMISSED.

  7. Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. is found GUILTY of unauthorized notarization of a private document and is hereby ORDERED to pay a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000), with a warning that a repetition of the same will be punished more severely.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Technical rules must give way to substantive rights.

  • Municipal trial court and municipal circuit trial court judges are empowered to perform the functions of notaries public ex-officio, but such authority is limited to the notarization of documents connected with the exercise of their official functions.

  • MTC and MCTC judges have the authority to perform notarial functions ex-officio, but it is limited to documents connected to their official duties.

  • MTC and MCTC judges are prohibited from undertaking the preparation and acknowledgment of private documents and engaging in the private practice of law.

  • MTC and MCTC judges can act as notaries public ex-officio in municipalities or circuits without lawyers or notaries public, subject to certain requirements.

  • Judges should exercise their power and discretion with utmost care and in accordance with the law to avoid any irregularity or abuse.

  • Unauthorized notarization of a private document is a violation and subjects the notary public to disciplinary action and penalties.