View full case

GERONIMO C. FUENTES v. JUDGE ROMUALDO G. BUNO

FACTS:

The case involves an administrative complaint filed against Judge Romualdo G. Buno of the 4th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) in Talibon-Getafe, Bohol. The complaint was filed by Geronimo C. Fuentes and alleged abuse of discretion and authority and graft and corruption by the judge.

According to the complaint, Geronimo Fuentes is one of the heirs of Bernardo Fuentes, who owned an agricultural land in Talibon, Bohol. The respondent judge prepared and notarized an "Extra-Judicial Partition with Simultaneous Absolute Deed of Sale" of the said land, executed by the complainant's mother, Eulalia Credo Vda. de Fuentes, and Alejandro Fuentes, on behalf of the heirs/vendors including Geronimo Fuentes, and a vendee named Ma. Indira A. Auxtero. The complainant argues that the land was sold despite the fact that in the Special Power of Attorney (SPA), Alejandro Fuentes was only authorized to mortgage the land and not to partition or sell it.

In the respondent judge's answer, he admits notarizing the document and explains that Eulalia Vda. de Fuentes and Alejandro Fuentes requested him to prepare a document of sale between the heirs of Bernardo Fuentes and Ma. Indira Auxtero. He further explains that the land subject to the sale was a conjugal property of Bernardo Fuentes and Eulalia Credo Vda. de Fuentes, and he advised them to secure a special power of attorney from the children who were out of town. Although no special power of attorney from the complainant was presented, the respondent judge claims that the request was urgent and the preparations were made on the assurance that the special power of attorney was forthcoming. The document was signed and notarized by the respondent judge on December 24, 1996.

The respondent judge further states that he later learned that the special power of attorney from the complainant only empowered Alejandro Fuentes to mortgage the property. However, Eulalia Fuentes and Alejandro Fuentes assured him that they would be responsible for the complainant's share, and Ma. Indira Auxtero reserved the complainant's share. The respondent judge argues that he did not abuse his discretion and authority by making and notarizing the document outside office hours.

The respondent judge also presents certifications from the Clerk of Court and from the Bohol Integrated Bar Association to support his claim that in municipalities where a notary public is unavailable, municipal judges are allowed to notarize documents as ex-officio notary publics.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Judge Romualdo G. Buno abused his discretion and authority when he prepared and notarized an "Extra-Judicial Partition with Simultaneous Absolute Deed of Sale" without proper authority from all the heirs.

  2. Whether or not Judge Romualdo G. Buno committed graft and corruption by notarizing the said document.

RULING:

  1. Yes, Judge Romualdo G. Buno abused his discretion and authority when he prepared and notarized the "Extra-Judicial Partition with Simultaneous Absolute Deed of Sale" without proper authority from all the heirs. According to the complaint, Geronimo Fuentes alleged that the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) only appointed his brother, Alejandro Fuentes, to mortgage the agricultural land and not to partition or sell it. The complainant argued that the sale of the property was unauthorized. The respondent judge admitted notarizing the document but claimed he did so upon the request of the parties. However, the complainant's assertion that the SPA did not authorize the sale was not sufficiently countered by the respondent. Thus, the respondent judge committed an abuse of discretion and authority in this case.

  2. The Court did not directly address the issue of graft and corruption in the ruling. The case was focused on the abuse of discretion and authority committed by Judge Romualdo G. Buno. There is no explicit mention or ruling on the charge of graft and corruption.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Notaries public are responsible for verifying the authenticity and legality of the documents they notarize. They should exercise due diligence in ensuring that the persons involved in the transaction have the proper authority to enter into it.

  • Judges who serve as ex-officio notaries public should only notarize documents within the scope of their authority and should not abuse their discretion in performing their notarial functions. They should not notarize documents without proper authority from the parties involved.