Title
Batic vs. Galapon, Jr.
Case
A.M. No. MTJ-99-1239, MTJ-05-1595, MTJ-05-1596
Decision Date
Jul 29, 2005
Judge Galapon fined P20,000 for unauthorized notarization; warrant of arrest complaint dismissed due to procedural lapse in good faith.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-99-1239, MTJ-05-1595, MTJ-05-1596)

Facts:

1. Administrative Matter No. MTJ-99-1239 (Vicente M. Batic vs. Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr.)

  • Complainant Vicente M. Batic, a co-accused in Criminal Case No. 12305 (People v. Vicente Batic and Lualhati Ellert for Grave Coercion), accused Judge Galapon of graft and corruption, grave abuse of authority, gross ignorance of the law, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the service.
  • Batic alleged that Judge Galapon issued a warrant of arrest against him and his co-accused on March 18, 1997, two days before the criminal complaint was filed on March 20, 1997.
  • Batic also accused Judge Galapon of unauthorized notarial practice for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale between Antonio Caamic and Lualhati Ellert on January 25, 1990.

2. Administrative Matter No. MTJ-05-1595 (Horst Franz Ellert vs. Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr.)

  • Complainant Horst Franz Ellert, a French national and husband of Lualhati Ellert, accused Judge Galapon of preparing and notarizing a Deed of Sale describing Lualhati Ellert as "single."
  • Ellert alleged that Judge Galapon, along with Atty. Custodio P. Cañete, conspired to deprive him of his share in conjugal properties.

3. Administrative Matter No. MTJ-05-1596 (Horst Franz Ellert vs. Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr.)

  • Ellert filed another complaint, accusing Judge Galapon of ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and gross negligence for prematurely issuing a warrant of arrest on March 18, 1997, before the complaint was officially filed on March 20, 1997.

4. Judge Galapon’s Defense

  • Judge Galapon explained that the warrant of arrest was issued after a preliminary examination on March 18, 1997, and the discrepancy in dates was due to procedural delays.
  • He admitted to notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale but claimed he did so in good faith, believing that Municipal Trial Court judges could act as notaries public ex-officio when no notary public was available.
  • He denied any malicious intent and accused the complainants of harassment.

Issue:

  1. Whether Judge Galapon abused his authority by issuing a warrant of arrest before the criminal complaint was officially filed.
  2. Whether Judge Galapon’s notarization of a private document (Deed of Absolute Sale) constituted unauthorized notarial practice and violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.
  3. Whether Judge Galapon’s actions warranted administrative sanctions.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The complaints regarding the issuance of the warrant of arrest were dismissed. However, Judge Galapon was found guilty of unauthorized notarization and fined P20,000, with a warning against future violations.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.