A.M. No. MTJ-00-1294 - Ellert vs. Galapon Jr.

Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1294)

Factual Background: The DARAB Notarization Issue

As to DARAB Case No. VIII-169-L-91, Ellert asserted that, in the Answer filed before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) by Marina Roca and Odeth Roca, the signature of Judge Galapon appeared in the jurat. Ellert maintained that a Municipal Trial Court judge may administer oaths and sign jurats only for documents connected with the judge’s official functions in relation to court proceedings pending before the judge, including pleadings or affidavits to be filed in the judge’s own court. He argued that the judge was not authorized to sign jurats for an answer filed in a DARAB case, because that document was not connected with the exercise of the judge’s duties in the municipal trial court. Ellert thus alleged that Judge Galapon knowingly and unlawfully administered oaths by signing the jurat attached to the verification portion of the DARAB Answer.

Factual Background: Allegations of False Testimony and Perjury in the Criminal Case

With respect to Criminal Case No. 97-07-CR-161, Ellert alleged that, during the trial before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities at Tacloban City, Branch I, and presided over by Judge Romulo Casiber (with Ellert’s complaint directed against Judge Galapon as complainant-witness), Judge Galapon gave false testimony under oath and committed perjury. Ellert focused on multiple alleged misstatements: that Judge Galapon falsely swore that Ellert was a resident of Barangay Tabu, Dulag, Leyte, when Ellert actually resided at Sitio Payapay, Barangay 90, San Jose, Tacloban City; that Judge Galapon claimed he helped Ellert by writing to the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and that the bank returned proceeds, when DBP reportedly certified that no such letter was sent or received; and that Judge Galapon allegedly falsely testified about how he first came to know Ellert, including that the source of his knowledge involved a civil case and that Ellert was the subject of a civil dispute before the municipal trial court. Ellert further asserted that Judge Galapon claimed he did not know Barangay Tabu in Dulag, Leyte, despite alleged personal acquaintance through community relationships, including the supposed notarization of a locational clearance application by the barangay chairman.

Respondent Judge’s Position and Defenses

In his Comment dated February 7, 2000, Judge Galapon denied the allegations and attributed Ellert’s continued attacks to an alleged pattern of harassment. He stated that Ellert had been convicted in Criminal Case No. 97-07-CR-161 for Light Threats, with a sentence ranging from five (5) months and eleven (11) days as minimum to six (6) months as maximum of Arresto Mayor, plus costs. On the residence issue, Judge Galapon asserted that when the information was filed, he believed Ellert’s residence to be Barangay Tabu, Dulag, Leyte, based on the address used in Ellert’s affidavit-complaint supporting the criminal case. Judge Galapon claimed ignorance of Ellert’s later change of residence. He also maintained that his testimony that he did not know Barangay Tabu was the result of a transcription error, contending that he meant only that he did not know the exact location within the barangay. As to the DBP letter, he argued that any reference in testimony was not about a claimed property of a named person, but about a land subject of a civil case pending before his court, and that the sale had been rescinded, evidenced by an order. Judge Galapon also candidly admitted that he had notarized the oath in the verification portion of the DARAB Answer. He asserted, however, that he believed there was nothing improper or abusive in administering that oath and that there was no malice or bad faith. He requested dismissal, adding that Ellert’s charges were fabricated and malicious.

Recommendation and the Court’s Focus

The Deputy Court Administrator, Bernardo T. Ponferrada, in a memorandum dated March 13, 2000, recommended that Judge Galapon be ordered to pay a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a warning against repetition. The Court found respondent guilty of the charge relating to unauthorized notarization constituting an unlawful practice of law. The Court did not treat the remaining allegations on false testimony and perjury as matters properly resolved in the administrative proceeding.

Legal Basis: Authority of MTC Judges as Notaries Public Ex Officio

In resolving the unauthorized-notarization charge, the Court relied on Circular No. I-90, which delineated the power of Municipal Trial Court (MTC) and Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) judges to act as notaries public ex officio. The Court quoted the framework that these judges may perform the notarial functions under Section 76 of Republic Act No. 296, as amended (the Judiciary Act of 1948), and Section 242 of the Revised Administrative Code. Crucially, Circular No. I-90 limited the scope of the power to notarizations connected only with the exercise of the judges’ official functions and duties, citing Borre v. Mayo (Adm. Matter No. 1765-CFI, October 17, 1980) and Penera v. Dalocanog (Adm. Matter No. 2113-MJ, April 22, 1981). It also stated that judges may not, as notaries ex officio, undertake preparation and acknowledgment of private documents, contracts, and conveyances bearing no direct relation to the performance of their judicial functions. The Court further referenced the 1989 Code of Judicial Conduct, which enjoins judges to regulate extra-judicial activities to minimize conflict and prohibits them from engaging in the private practice of law (citing Canon 5 and Rule 5.07).

Circular No. I-90 recognized a limited exception: if the municipality or circuit lacked lawyers or notaries public, a judge assigned there may act as a notary within the competency of a regular notary, but only if (1) any notarial fees charged are for the account of the Government and are turned over to the municipal treasurer, and (2) the notarized documents contain certification that no lawyer or notary public exists in the municipality or circuit, as supported by Lapena, Jr. vs. Marcos (Adm. Matter No. 1969-MJ, June 29, 1982).

Legal Reasoning: The Notarized DARAB Answer Fell Outside Official Notarial Authority

The Court held that the Answer notarized by Judge Galapon in DARAB Case No. VIII-169-L-91 was an example of a document bearing no relation to the performance of the respondent’s functions as a municipal trial court judge. It reasoned that Judge Galapon’s act of notarizing the pleading was not connected with the exercise of his official duties and, therefore, went beyond the scope of authority as a notary public ex officio. The Court emphasized that the exception under Circular No. I-90 required a showing that there were no lawyers or notaries public in Dulag, Leyte. It found no such showing in the case. Thus, the defense that the judge saw nothing wrong with the notarization was deemed unmeritorious, and the Court observed that a judge should know the limits of authority u

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-00-1294)

The complainant Horst Franz Ellert filed a letter-complaint dated January 8, 2000 and an affidavit-complaint dated January 10, 2000 against Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court at Dulag, Leyte, charging grave misconduct, abuse of judicial authority, ignorance of the law, unlawful notarization, perjury, and false testimony.
The charges arose from two related proceedings, namely DARAB Case No. VIII-169-L-91 entitled “Lualhati V. Ellert vs. Marina Roca, et al.” and Criminal Case No. 97-07-CR-161 entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Horst Franz Ellert.”
The Court ultimately found the respondent guilty of unauthorized notarization constituting an unlawful practice of law, and it directed the imposition of a monetary fine with a warning.
The Court treated the allegations of false testimony and perjury as matters outside the administrative forum’s competence for criminal adjudication, and it directed the complainant to pursue the proper criminal remedies.

Parties and Procedural Posture

Horst Franz Ellert acted as the complainant in the administrative case before the Court.
Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. acted as the respondent, holding judicial office at the Municipal Trial Court at Dulag, Leyte.
The Court considered the complaints as originating from two separate cases involving the complainant and other parties, but the administrative liability was anchored on the respondent’s conduct as a judge and notary.
The respondent filed a Comment dated February 7, 2000, disputing material factual allegations and seeking dismissal of the complaints.

Core Administrative Charges

The complainant alleged that the respondent committed grave misconduct, abuse of judicial authority, and ignorance of the law by performing unauthorized notarial acts.
The complainant alleged unlawful notarization in connection with the respondent’s signing of the jurat in the Verification portion of an Answer filed in the DARAB case.
The complainant alleged false testimony and perjury based on statements attributed to the respondent during the trial and proceedings in the criminal case for light threats.

Key Factual Allegations I

In DARAB Case No. VIII-169-L-91 entitled “Lualhati V. Ellert vs. Marina Roca and Odeth Roca,” the complainant alleged that the respondent’s signature appeared in the jurat.
The complainant contended that a Municipal Trial Court judge could administer oaths or sign jurats only for documents connected to matters pending before the judge’s court or for submission for that court, and not for unrelated pleadings or other documents.
The complainant argued that, even as an Ex-Officio Notary Public, the respondent was authorized only to notarize limited classes of documents and not the Answer submitted to the DARAB.
The complainant asserted that the respondent knowingly and unlawfully administered oaths to the opposing parties by signing the jurat at the bottom of the Verification of the Answer.

Key Factual Allegations II

In Criminal Case No. 97-07-CR-161 entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Horst Franz Ellert,” the complainant alleged that the respondent gave false testimony and allegedly committed perjury.
The complainant alleged that, in an affidavit-complaint, the respondent falsely stated that the complainant resided in Barangay Tabu, Dulag, Leyte.
The complainant alleged that other evidence showed the complainant resided in Sitio Payapay, Barangay 90, San Jose, Tacloban City.
The complainant further alleged that the respondent claimed he helped the complainant by writing to the Development Bank of the Philippines, but the complainant invoked a certification that no such letter was sent or received.
The complainant alleged that the respondent also falsely testified about how he came to know the complainant, asserting that the asserted basis involved an earlier case supposedly filed in the respondent’s court.
The complainant alleged that the respondent falsely testified about not knowing specified barangays in Dulag, Leyte, and the complainant claimed personal familiarity through relationships and notarial acts.
The complainant framed these alleged inconsistencies as grounds for perjury and false testimony, and he sought administrative discipline against the respondent.

Respondent’s Defenses

The respondent argued that the complaints were part of a “series of continuous and relentless harassment cases” filed by the complainant.
The respondent stated that the complainant’s harassment stemmed from the criminal case the respondent filed, where the complainant was duly convicted and sentenced to imprisonment ranging from five (5) months and eleven (11) days to six (6) months of Arresto Mayor, and to pay the cost.
As to the residence issue, the respondent claimed he believed the complainant’s residence at the time the information was filed was Barangay Tabu, Dulag, Leyte, and that he did not know the