Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842)
Facts:
In the case of Rex M. Tupal vs. Judge Remegio V. Rojo, A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842, decided on February 24, 2014, the complainant, Rex M. Tupal, filed a complaint against Judge Remegio V. Rojo, who presides over the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 5, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental. The complaint alleged that Judge Rojo solemnized marriages without the requisite marriage licenses by notarizing affidavits of cohabitation and issuing them to the contracting parties on the day of their marriage. Tupal submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator nine affidavits of cohabitation, all notarized by Judge Rojo, which included a jurat declaring he had sworn to their authenticity. Tupal contended that by notarizing these affidavits, which were unrelated to his official duties as a solemnizing officer, Judge Rojo violated Circular No. 1-90. This circular restricts municipal trial court judges from performing notarizations not connected with their official functions. Furtherm
Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- Rex M. Tupal filed a complaint against Judge Remegio V. Rojo for allegedly violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and for gross ignorance of the law.
- The complaint arose from Judge Rojo’s practice of notarizing affidavits of cohabitation on the same day he solemnized marriages, instead of requiring the presentation of a marriage license.
- Judge Rojo, presiding over Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 5, Bacolod City, Negros Occidental, was accused of notarizing affidavits without fulfilling the proper legal and procedural requirements.
- Notarization of Affidavits of Cohabitation
- The affidavits notarized by Judge Rojo were executed by contracting parties who intended to have their cohabitation legally ratified in lieu of a marriage license.
- These affidavits contained a jurat indicating that the document was “SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN” before the judge on the day of the marriage ceremony.
- Nine such affidavits were presented, all notarized on the same day as the respective marriage ceremonies.
- Alleged Violations
- Judge Rojo was accused of violating Circular No. 1-90 (dated February 26, 1990), which authorizes municipal judges to act as notaries public only for documents connected with their official functions and duties.
- Rex contended that affidavits of cohabitation are not within the scope of a judge’s official duties when solemnizing a marriage.
- Additionally, Judge Rojo purportedly violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by:
- Not affixing his judicial seal on the affidavits.
- Failing to require the parties to present competent evidence of identity as mandated by law.
- Judge Rojo’s Defense and Practice
- The judge argued that notarizing affidavits of cohabitation was connected with his official function as a solemnizing officer.
- He maintained that his practice was not prohibited by the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage for members of the Judiciary, and that his familiarity with the parties through preliminary interviews rendered additional identification unnecessary.
- Judge Rojo further argued that he did not engage in a private practice of notarization since he acted ex officio, noting that similar practices were common among judges in Bacolod City and Talisay City.
- Administrative Findings and Recommendations
- The Office of the Court Administrator found that Judge Rojo had violated Circular No. 1-90 by notarizing documents not connected with his official functions and without certifying the absence of lawyers or notaries public in his territorial jurisdiction.
- The office recommended a fine for each of the nine instances, citing the notarization as an improper application of judicial authority in notarizing non-official documents.
- Procedural Context of the Marriage Ceremonies
- The guidelines require that before solemnizing a marriage, the judge must personally:
- Interview the contracting parties.
- Examine the marriage license or, in cases of legal ratification of cohabitation, verify the affidavit attesting to at least five years of cohabitation.
- By notarizing the affidavit of cohabitation, the judge compromised his ability to objectively examine the declarations made by the parties.
Issues:
- Violation of Judicial Conduct and Administrative Rules
- Whether Judge Rojo’s notarization of affidavits of cohabitation, which were not directly connected with his official functions as a solemnizing officer, constituted a violation of Circular No. 1-90.
- Whether the notarization without the requisite certification of the absence of lawyers or notaries public in his jurisdiction was a breach of the rules governing ex officio notarization.
- Compliance with the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice
- Whether Judge Rojo violated the rules requiring that a notary public personally know the signatories or obtain competent evidence of identity before notarizing documents.
- Whether his practice of interviewing the contracting parties sufficed to meet the notarial identification requirements.
- Conflict of Duties in the Special Context of Marriage Solemnization
- Whether the dual role of notarizing and then solemnizing the marriage created a conflict of interest, thereby impeding the objective examination of the affidavit of cohabitation.
- Whether the judge’s act of notarizing impeded the proper and independent assessment of the parties’ qualifications to contract marriage.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)