Mathaeus vs. Medequiso

Clerks of court, as notaries public ex-officio, may administer oaths only when the matter is related to the exercise of their official functions; the notarization of a verification and certification against forum shopping attached to a petition for review is not within the scope of those functions. A defect in the certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by subsequent correction unless there is substantial compliance or compelling reasons to relax the rules.

Respondent spouses filed a complaint for a sum of money against petitioner Uwe Mathaeus in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Tagbilaran, docketed as Civil Case No. 5579. Petitioner failed to file a verified answer and did not furnish a copy to the opposing party. As a result, the MTCC expunged the answer and rendered a decision ordering petitioner to pay P30,000.00 with legal interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.

• Nature of the principal action: Respondents instituted a complaint for a sum of money against petitioner before the MTCC of Tagbilaran, docketed as Civil Case No. 5579.

• Petitioner’s procedural default in the MTCC: Petitioner filed an unverified answer without furnishing a copy to respondents. Conformably with the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, the MTCC expunged the answer from the records and rendered a decision on January 12, 2007 ordering petitioner to pay respondents P30,000.00 with legal interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.

• Appeal to the RTC: Petitioner appealed to the RTC, which affirmed the MTCC decision on September 30, 2008. A subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied.

• Petition for review in the CA and the defect in verification: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the CA. The petition included a verification and certification against forum shopping, but the oath was administered not by a duly commissioned notary public but by Atty. Romulo T. Puagang, the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Tagbilaran, acting in his capacity as notary public ex-officio.

• CA dismissal: The CA dismissed the petition because the verification was improperly notarized—matters subject to a clerk of court’s ex-officio notarial powers are limited to those related to the exercise of official functions, and a verification for a petition for review does not fall within that scope. The CA treated the petition as unsigned and dismissible.

• Validity of notarization by the RTC clerk of court: Petitioner argued that the notarization of the verification and certification was valid because the petition for review filed in the CA was merely a continuation of Civil Case No. 5579, over which the same RTC exercised appellate jurisdiction. He distinguished Exec. Judge Astorga v. Solas as involving documents alien to a clerk’s functions, whereas his petition was directly connected to the proceedings in the RTC.

• Admission of the unverified Answer: Petitioner maintained that his failure to file a verified answer in the MTCC should not be held against him because he was a non-lawyer and a foreigner unfamiliar with Philippine procedural rules. He further asserted that his answer was not expunged from the records and should therefore be admitted.

• Liberal interpretation in light of the Small Claims Rules: Petitioner contended that the subsequent issuance of A.M. No. 08-9-7-SC (the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases), which prohibits the appearance of attorneys and emphasizes substantial justice, underscored the need for a liberal interpretation of the rules. He prayed that the case be remanded for a full-blown trial to allow the parties to present their evidence.

• Frivolous and dilatory petition: Respondents simply countered that the petition was frivolous and dilatory, and stressed that all three courts — the MTCC, the RTC, and the CA — had unanimously ruled against petitioner.

• Validity of Verification before Clerk of Court: Whether the verification and certification of non-forum shopping in the petition for review were properly notarized by a clerk of court acting ex-officio, and whether the CA erred in dismissing the petition on that basis.

• Admission of Unverified Answer: Whether strict adherence to Section 6 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure should be applied, considering that petitioner’s answer had not been expunged from the MTCC records and petitioner was a foreigner unfamiliar with procedural rules.

• Application of Liberality: Whether the nature of the case and the subsequent enactment of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases (A.M. No. 08-9-7-SC) warranted a liberal interpretation of the rules so as to allow petitioner to present evidence in a full-blown trial.

• Validity of Verification before Clerk of Court: The verification was invalid. Clerks of court are notaries public ex-officio and may administer oaths only when the matter is related to the exercise of their official functions. The notarization of a verification and certification against forum shopping in a petition for review is not part of a clerk of court’s daily official duties; to hold otherwise would add to an already heavy workload and could give rise to abuse. The petition was therefore improperly verified and was correctly dismissed under Section 3 of Rule 42. In any event, a defect in the certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by subsequent correction, and no compelling reasons or special circumstances justified a relaxation of the rule.

• Admission of Unverified Answer: The matter was not addressed independently, as the dismissal of the CA petition was sustained on the ground of improper verification. Nevertheless, the Court noted that petitioner’s procedural missteps — the failure to file a verified answer in the MTCC, the failure to furnish a copy to the adverse party, and the defective verification before the CA — formed a pattern of lapses that counseled against liberality.

• Application of Liberality: No liberal interpretation was warranted. The Court perceived no compelling reasons to relax the rules for petitioner’s benefit. The existence of the Small Claims Rules did not cure the jurisdictional infirmity arising from the defective certification; the CA’s dismissal was just and should stand.

• Clerks of court as notaries public ex-officio — Under Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code, clerks of court possess ex-officio notarial powers. However, such authority is limited: they may notarize documents or administer oaths only when the matter is related to the exercise of their official functions. A verification and certification against forum shopping attached to a petition for review is not within the scope of a clerk of court’s daily official duties; its notarization must be performed by a duly commissioned notary public. The rule serves to prevent abuse and to avoid distracting clerks of court from their essential functions.

• Defect in certification against forum shopping — Unlike a defective verification, a defective certification against forum shopping is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction. Dismissal is proper unless there is substantial compliance or the presence of special circumstances or compelling reasons that justify relaxation of the rule.

• “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. x x x [C]lerks 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.” — Reiterates the controlling doctrine on the scope of ex-officio notarial powers.

• “We are not prepared to rule in petitioner's favor on this score; as it is, the workload of a clerk of court is already heavy enough. We cannot add to this the function of notarizing complaints, answers, petitions, or any other pleadings on a daily or regular basis; such a responsibility can very well be relegated to commissioned notaries public. Besides, if the practice — specifically title notarization by clerks of court of pleadings filed in cases pending before their own salas or courts — is allowed, unpleasant consequences might ensue; it could be subject to abuse, and it distracts the clerks of court's attention from the true and essential work they perform.” — Policy justification for limiting the ex-officio notarial functions of court personnel.

• “[N]on-compliance therewith or a defect therein [in the certification against forum shopping], unlike in verification, is generally not curable by its subsequent submission or correction thereof, unless there is a need to relax the Rule on the ground of ‘substantial compliance’ or presence of ‘special circumstances or compelling reasons.’” — Distinguishes the consequences of a defective verification from a defective certification.

• Cruz v. Atty. Centron, 484 Phil. 671 (2004) — The principal authority defining the limits of a clerk of court’s ex-officio notarial powers; the same passage was quoted by the Supreme Court to dispose of the issue.

• Exec. Judge Astorga v. Solas, 413 Phil. 558 (2001) and Noynay-Arlos v. Conag, 465 Phil. 849 (2004) — Cited by the Court of Appeals and affirmed as correct statements of the rule that clerks of court may notarize only matters related to their official functions.

• Fernandez v. Villegas, G.R. No. 200191, August 20, 2014, 733 SCRA 548 — Applied for the rule that a defect in the certification against forum shopping is generally not curable absent substantial compliance or compelling reasons.

• Section 242, Article III, Revised Administrative Code — Grants clerks of court the authority to act as notaries public ex-officio.

• Sections 1, 2, and 3, Rule 42, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure — Require that a petition for review filed with the Court of Appeals be verified and accompanied by a certification against forum shopping; Section 3 provides that failure to comply with the requirements concerning the contents of the petition and the accompanying documents is sufficient ground for dismissal.

• Section 6, Revised Rule on Summary Procedure — Pertains to the filing of a verified answer; invoked by petitioner as a basis for arguing that his answer should have been admitted. The Court did not apply the provision in petitioner’s favor.

Associate Justices Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Arturo D. Brion, and Jose Catral Mendoza concurred. Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen was on leave.

N/A (no dissenting opinions were recorded).