Office of the Court Administrator vs. Saguyod

A Clerk of Court of a Regional Trial Court who notarizes documents without complying with the conditions under A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC — specifically, the certification that there are no available notaries public within the territorial jurisdiction of the court — is administratively liable for inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. The authority to notarize is conditioned upon strict compliance with the prescribed requirements, and good faith or lack of monetary consideration does not excuse non-compliance.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted an audit of 1,194 cases decided by former Judge Liberty O. Castañeda of the Regional Trial Court of Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67, where respondent Paulino I. Saguyod was also stationed as Branch Clerk of Court. The audit was conducted in connection with A.M. No. RTJ-15-2404, an administrative matter against the former judge. The audit team discovered that respondent had been notarizing a multitude of documents filed before the RTC without properly observing the Court's guidelines on notarial practice.

Respondent Paulino I. Saguyod was the Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67, where former Judge Liberty O. Castañeda was also stationed. In connection with A.M. No. RTJ-15-2404, an administrative matter against Judge Castañeda, the Audit Team examined 1,194 cases decided by the former judge. During the investigation, the Audit Team discovered that respondent had been notarizing a multitude of documents filed before the RTC in connection with the various cases before it without properly observing the Court's appropriate guidelines.

Specifically, the Audit Team observed that respondent violated Section (f) of the Resolution dated August 15, 2006 in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, as he notarized said documents without any certification that there are no available notaries public within the Municipality of Paniqui, Tarlac. The Audit Team recommended, and the OCA adopted, that respondent be directed to explain why he should not be held administratively liable for such act.

In his Explanation dated July 31, 2017, respondent claimed that he performed the notarization in good faith and without any monetary consideration. Citing Section 41, Chapter 10, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987, which authorizes clerks of courts to administer oaths, he thought he was doing an important function vital to the prompt and sound administration of justice. He profusely apologized for notarizing documents without strictly adhering to the provisions of the Rules on Notarial Practice and manifested that after the Audit Team called his attention to the matter, he had already refrained from subscribing any other document filed before the RTC.

The OCA found that respondent readily admitted to notarizing various documents filed before the RTC without complying with Section (f) of the Resolution dated August 15, 2006 in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, and even when some of these documents were not completely accomplished by the concerned parties. The OCA rejected respondent's defenses, noting that his act of notarizing without compliance directly made him liable thereunder, and that there were other petitions filed before the RTC which were notarized by notaries public based in Paniqui, Tarlac.

• Good Faith and Lack of Monetary Consideration: Respondent claimed that he performed the notarization in good faith and without any monetary consideration, believing he was performing an important function vital to the prompt and sound administration of justice.
• Statutory Authority: Respondent cited Section 41, Chapter 10, Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987, which authorizes clerks of courts to administer oaths, as basis for his belief that he was authorized to notarize the documents.
• Unavailability of Notaries Public: Respondent claimed that there were no notaries public available within the Municipality of Paniqui, Tarlac.
• Remedial Action: Respondent manifested that after the Audit Team called his attention to the matter, he had already refrained from subscribing any other document filed before the RTC out of fear of committing the same mistake.

• Direct Liability Under the Resolution: The OCA argued that respondent's act of notarizing without compliance with the Court's resolution directly makes him liable thereunder, regardless of whether he charged notarial fees.
• Rebuttal of Unavailability Claim: The OCA pointed out that there were other petitions filed before the RTC which were notarized by notaries public based in Paniqui, Tarlac, belying respondent's claim of unavailability.
• Aggravating Circumstances: The OCA noted that respondent even went out of his way to notarize documents that were incomplete or sorely lacking in material details, and that a mere fine would not suffice considering the number of times he repeatedly violated A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.

• Administrative Liability for Notarization: Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for notarizing various documents submitted to the RTC in connection with the cases filed before it without complying with Section (f) of the Resolution dated August 15, 2006 in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.

• Administrative Liability for Notarization: Yes. Respondent was held administratively liable for inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties, a grave offense under Section 46 (B) (4) of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense.

• Administrative Liability for Notarization: The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the OCA. Inefficiency involves specific acts or omissions on the part of the employee which results in damage to the employer or to the latter's business; it is akin to neglect of duty, which is the failure of an employee or official to give proper attention to a task expected of him or her, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. Respondent readily admitted to notarizing hundreds, if not thousands, of various documents submitted before the RTC where he is stationed. As a Clerk of Court, his acts of notarization should comply with Section (f) of the Resolution dated August 15, 2006 in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, which authorizes Clerks of Courts of the Regional Trial Courts to notarize not only documents relating to their official functions but also private documents, subject to the conditions that: (a) all notarial fees charged shall be for the account of the Judiciary; and (b) they certify in the notarized documents that there are no notaries public within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. Respondent's claim that there were no notaries public available within the Municipality of Paniqui, Tarlac was belied by the fact that there were other documents filed before the RTC which were duly subscribed by notaries public based in the same municipality. Furthermore, respondent could not feign good faith in performing the acts of notarization, as he repeatedly did so even on those documents which were not completely accomplished by the concerned parties. In light of respondent's repeated violations, the OCA correctly recommended that he be found administratively liable for inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties. Since it appeared that this was respondent's first offense of such nature, the Court deemed it appropriate to impose the penalty of suspension for a period of one (1) year, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall result in his dismissal from service.

• Inefficiency and Incompetence in the Performance of Official Duties — Inefficiency involves specific acts or omissions on the part of the employee which results in damage to the employer or to the latter's business. It is akin to neglect of duty, which is the failure of an employee or official to give proper attention to a task expected of him or her, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. The Court applied this doctrine to respondent's repeated notarization of documents without complying with the conditions under A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, including notarizing documents that were not completely accomplished by the concerned parties.

• Conditions for Clerks of Court to Notarize Documents — Under Section (f) of the Resolution dated August 15, 2006 in A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, Clerks of Courts of Regional Trial Courts are authorized to notarize not only documents relating to their official functions but also private documents, provided that: (a) all notarial fees charged shall be for the account of the Judiciary; and (b) they certify in the notarized documents that there are no notaries public within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court where they are stationed. The Court applied this doctrine to find respondent liable for notarizing documents without the required certification.

• "Under this provision, Clerks of Courts of various Regional Trial Courts are authorized to notarize not only documents relating to their official functions, but also private documents; provided, that: (a) the notarial fees received in connection thereto shall be for the account of the Judiciary; and (b) they certify in said documents that there are no available notaries public within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court where they are stationed." — This passage defines the conditions under which Clerks of Court may notarize documents and serves as the basis for finding respondent administratively liable.

• "Furthermore, BCC Saguyod cannot feign good faith in performing the aforesaid acts of notarization, as he repeatedly did so even on those documents which were not completely accomplished by the concerned parties." — This passage rejects the defense of good faith, emphasizing that repeated violations, including notarizing incomplete documents, negate any claim of good faith.

• "Public officers must be accountable to the people at all times and serve them with the utmost degree of responsibility and efficiency. Any act which falls short of the exacting standards for public office, especially on the part of those expected to preserve the image of the judiciary, shall not be countenanced." — This passage articulates the standard of accountability expected of public officers, particularly those in the judiciary, and underscores why respondent's conduct could not be tolerated.

• Sasing vs. Gelbolingo, 704 Phil. 251 (2013) — Cited as authority for the definition of inefficiency as involving specific acts or omissions on the part of the employee which results in damage to the employer or to the latter's business.
• St. Luke's Medical Center, Inc. vs. Fadrigo, 620 Phil. 745 (2009) — Cited in connection with the definition of inefficiency and its relation to neglect of duty.
• Office of the Ombudsman vs. De Leon, 705 Phil. 26 (2013) — Cited as authority for the definition of neglect of duty as the failure of an employee or official to give proper attention to a task expected of him or her.
• Republic of the Philippines vs. Canastillo, 551 Phil. 987 (2007) — Cited in connection with the definition of neglect of duty.
• Alano vs. Sahi, 737 Phil. 17 (2014) — Cited for the principle that public officers must be accountable to the people at all times and serve them with the utmost degree of responsibility and efficiency.
• Domingo-Regala vs. Sultan, 492 Phil. 482 (2005) — Cited in connection with the standard of accountability expected of public officers in the judiciary.

• Section (f), Resolution dated August 15, 2006, A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC (Re: 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice) — This provision authorizes Clerks of Courts of the Regional Trial Courts to notarize not only documents relating to their official functions but also private documents, subject to the conditions that all notarial fees charged shall be for the account of the Judiciary and that they certify in the notarized documents that there are no notaries public within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court. Respondent violated this provision by notarizing documents without the required certification.

• Section 41, Chapter 10, Book I, Administrative Code of 1987 (Executive Order No. 292) — This provision grants clerks of courts general authority to administer oaths. Respondent cited this provision as basis for his belief that he was authorized to notarize documents, but the Court found that this did not excuse his non-compliance with the specific conditions under A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC.

• Section 46 (B) (4), Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (Resolution No. 1101502, promulgated on November 18, 2011) — This provision classifies inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties as a grave offense, punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense, and dismissal from service for the second offense. The Court applied this provision in imposing the penalty of one-year suspension on respondent.

Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Peralta, Del Castillo, Leonen, Jardeleza, Caguioa, Tijam, Reyes, Jr., and Gesmundo, JJ., concurred. Bersamin, J., was on leave. Martires, J., was on official business.