Cruz vs. Centron

Clerks of court, as notaries public ex officio, may notarize documents or administer oaths only when the matter is related to the exercise of their official functions; notarization of a private deed of conveyance bearing no relation to such functions constitutes abuse of authority.

Respondent served as Clerk of Court VI of the Regional Trial Court, Office of the Clerk of Court, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro. By law, clerks of court of the Supreme Court and Regional Trial Courts are ex-officio notaries public with authority to administer oaths, subject to limitations under the Revised Administrative Code and the Manual for Clerks of Court. Complainant invoked that office and respondent’s status as a lawyer in seeking her disbarment and removal from office.

Complainant Arnel S. Cruz accused respondent Atty. Luningning Y. Centron, Clerk of Court VI of the Regional Trial Court of Calapan City, of assisting Gloria Logdat and Conchita de la Cruz in consummating the sale of a parcel of land covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 2186 in the name of Joaquina Jabat. According to complainant, respondent’s assistance consisted in preparing and notarizing the documents of sale. The sale was alleged to be illegal because the property remained the subject of reconstitution and extra-judicial settlement among the heirs, and Logdat and de la Cruz were consequently charged with estafa through falsification of public documents. Complainant further alleged that respondent used her standing as a lawyer to solicit the trust and confidence of the buyers, was involved in the disappearance of OCT No. 2186, and refused to surrender the title which was in the possession of one of her relatives.

Respondent denied involvement in the preparation of the documents and in the consummation of the sale. For her part, she claimed that her only participation was notarizing the deed of sale because the parties requested her to do so, as they could not afford the notarial fee charged by the notary public they had earlier approached. She likewise denied involvement in the alleged loss of the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. 2186, asserting that Conchita Acyatan de la Cruz and Gloria Acyatan Salamat-Logdat had given the certificate to their lawyer, Atty. Apolonia A. Comia-Soguilon.

The record included the notarized deed of sale covering the disputed land and the sworn affidavit of buyer Adelfa Manes attesting that respondent did not convince or influence the buyers to purchase the property. No other competent evidence directly linking respondent to preparation of the sale documents, inducement of the buyers, or loss of the owner’s duplicate copy was presented. The OCA found the gross-misconduct charge without basis but observed that notarization of the deed of conveyance was unrelated to respondent’s official functions and duties.

• Illegal Sale and Preparation of Documents: Complainant argued that respondent assisted Gloria Logdat and Conchita de la Cruz in consummating the illegal sale of land covered by OCT No. 2186 by preparing and notarizing the documents of sale, despite the property being subject to reconstitution and extra-judicial settlement among the heirs.
• Abuse of Professional Standing: Complainant maintained that respondent took advantage of being a lawyer to solicit the trust and confidence of the buyers of the subject parcel.
• Loss and Withholding of Title: Complainant argued that respondent was involved in the disappearance of OCT No. 2186 and refused to surrender the title which was in the possession of one of her relatives.
• Relief Sought: Complainant prayed that respondent be disbarred and removed from office for acts constitutive of gross misconduct.

• Limited Participation to Notarization: Respondent maintained that she did not prepare the documents nor participate in consummating the sale, and that she merely notarized the deed of sale upon the parties’ request because they could not afford the fee charged by the notary public they earlier approached.
• No Responsibility for Loss of Title: Respondent denied any involvement in the alleged loss of the owner’s duplicate copy of OCT No. 2186, claiming that Conchita Acyatan de la Cruz and Gloria Acyatan Salamat-Logdat gave the title to their lawyer, Atty. Apolonia A. Comia-Soguilon.

• Gross Misconduct and Disbarment: Whether respondent is liable for gross misconduct warranting disbarment and removal for allegedly preparing the sale documents, inducing the buyers, and causing the loss of OCT No. 2186.
• Ex-Officio Notarial Authority: Whether respondent committed abuse of authority by notarizing a private deed of sale unrelated to her official functions as Clerk of Court.

• Gross Misconduct and Disbarment: No. Direct and instrumental participation in the sale and loss of title was not proved by preponderant evidence, the only competent proof being the notarized deed itself.
• Ex-Officio Notarial Authority: Yes. Notarization of a private deed of conveyance unrelated to official functions violated the limits on ex-officio notarial authority and constituted abuse of authority.

• Gross Misconduct and Disbarment: In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, preponderant evidence is required and the burden rests on the complainant. Aside from the deed notarized by respondent, no competent evidence directly linked her to preparation of the documents or consummation of the sale; the assumption that she prepared what she notarized could not be given evidentiary weight without supporting proof. The claim of inducement was contradicted by buyer Adelfa Manes’s sworn affidavit that respondent did not convince or influence the buyers, and no competent evidence proved responsibility for the alleged loss of the owner’s duplicate copy.
• Ex-Officio Notarial Authority: Under Section 41, as amended, and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code, in relation to Sections G, M and N, Chapter VIII of the Manual for Clerks of Court, clerks of court are notaries public ex officio who may notarize or administer oaths only when the matter relates to official functions. Notarizing the subject private deed of sale was outside respondent’s competence and official duty. Following Astorga vs. Solas, participation in private documents bearing no relation to official functions is prohibited; because this was respondent’s first offense and involved only one document, the recommended ₱2,000.00 fine was deemed commensurate, rather than the ₱5,000.00 imposed in Astorga for multiple documents.

• Ex-officio notarial limitation on clerks of court — Clerks of court are notaries public ex officio and may notarize documents or administer oaths only when the matter is related to the exercise of their official functions; taking part in the execution of private documents bearing no relation to official functions constitutes abuse of authority. The limitation was applied to hold respondent liable for notarizing a private deed of sale, even though gross misconduct was not established.
• Preponderant evidence in administrative disbarment cases — In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. The standard was applied to dismiss the charges of preparation of sale documents, inducement of buyers, and loss of title for lack of competent supporting evidence.

• "In administrative cases for disbarment or suspension against lawyers, the quantum of proof required is clearly preponderant evidence and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant." — States the evidentiary standard that defeated the gross-misconduct and disbarment charges for want of competent proof.
• "Under these provisions, 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." — Defines the controlling limitation on a clerk of court’s notarial authority applied to the private deed of sale.
• "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." — Recites the rule from Astorga vs. Solas used as the basis for finding abuse of authority.

• Astorga vs. Solas, 361 SCRA 240 (2001) — Followed as controlling authority that clerks of court must not in their ex-officio capacity participate in private documents unrelated to official functions; also used as penalty reference where a ₱5,000.00 fine was imposed for notarizing various alien documents.
• Rudecon Management Corporation vs. Camacho, AC No. 6403, August 31, 2004 — Cited for the rule that preponderant evidence is required in administrative disbarment or suspension cases with the burden on the complainant.

• Section 41, Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 6733 — Lists officers with general authority to administer oaths, including clerks of courts; applied with the Manual provisions to delimit when oath-administration and notarization are permitted.
• Section 242, Revised Administrative Code — Designates clerks of court of the Supreme Court and Regional Trial Courts as ex-officio notaries public within their territorial jurisdiction; respondent’s notarization was measured against this authority and found outside official functions.
• Sections G, M and N, Chapter VIII, Manual for Clerks of Court — Reproduce and implement Sections 242 and 41 and provide that officers authorized to administer oaths, with stated exceptions, are not obliged to act save in matters of official business; relied upon to conclude that notarizing the private deed of conveyance was abuse of authority.

Callejo, Sr., J. and Chico-Nazario, J., concur. Puno, J., on official leave. Tinga, J., on leave.