Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-15-2406)
Allegations of Misconduct
The complaint by Atty. Nate alleges that Respondent Contreras committed three acts of grave misconduct: notarizing an administrative complaint filed by her father, certifying a labor complaint as a true copy of the original, and appearing as counsel for her father in a hearing before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). These acts are scrutinized under the authority granted to clerks of court under the Administrative Code of 1987 and ethical standards for public officials and employees.
Legal Framework
Clerks of court are authorized to act as ex officio notaries public, as per the Administrative Code of 1987. However, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees prohibits public officials from engaging in private practice unless specifically authorized. At the time of the alleged misconduct, the 2004 Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice were not yet in effect.
Specific Instances of Misconduct
Notarizing Her Father's Complaint: Nate claims that Contreras illegally notarized a complaint filed by her father because under the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice, notaries cannot notarize documents related to individuals with whom they have a familial relationship up to the fourth civil degree. Nate further argues that the notarization occurred outside her jurisdiction since the document was signed in Buhi while she was serving in Iriga City.
Certification of a Labor Complaint: Complainant Nate asserts that Contreras certified a labor complaint document which was not in the custody of the RTC Iriga City, thus exceeding her authority as she was permitted only to authenticate documents that were within her maintenance.
Appearing as Counsel for Her Father: It was alleged that Contreras represented her father before the IBP without prior written authority, an act she later admitted during proceedings.
Respondent’s Defense
Contreras accepted the allegations but contended that her actions were permissible under the Manual for Clerks of Court. She argued that her notarization was not a private act and that the administrative complaint was a matter of public interest, thus allowing her to notarize it regardless of her familial connection to the principal. Moreover, she asserted that the Municipality of Buhi fell under her jurisdiction.
Office of the Court Administrator's Position
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) sided with the complainant regarding the first two acts, stating that there was insufficient connection between her official duties and her father's complaint or her sister-in-law’s labor case. With regards to her appearance as counsel, however, the OCA indicated that she had obtained the necessary authorization from the Court.
Legal Issues Raised
The primary issues before the Court were whether Contreras committed administrative violations through:
- Notarizing her father's complaint without legal authority.
- Certifying a labor document not in her official custody.
- Acting as counsel in a case where she had alleged conflicts.
Court's Ruling
The Court found Contreras liable for unauthorized notarizatio
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-15-2406)
Case Overview
- This administrative case involves allegations against Judge Lelu P. Contreras for grave misconduct during her tenure as Clerk of Court VI of the Regional Trial Court in Iriga City, Camarines Sur.
- The complainant, Atty. Benito B. Nate, claims that the respondent engaged in three specific unauthorized acts: notarizing an administrative complaint, certifying a document as a true copy, and appearing as counsel for her father without proper authority.
Allegations Against Respondent
- Notarization of an Administrative Complaint: The respondent allegedly notarized a complaint prepared by her father, which was subsequently filed with the Supreme Court. Complainant Nate contends that this act was unauthorized as the respondent was related to the principal within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity, disqualifying her under Section 3, Rule 4 of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice.
- Certification of a Document: Contreras is accused of certifying a labor complaint as a true copy, which was later utilized by her sister-in-law in a labor case pending before the National Labor Relations Commission. Complainant argues this act exceeded her authority since the document was not in her custody as Clerk of Court.
- Representation as Counsel: The complainant asserts that the respondent represented her father before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) without prior written authority from the Court, a requirement she later admitted was not met initially.
Respondent's Defense
- Judge Contreras admitted to the allegations but argued that her actions were permissible under the Manual for Clerks of Court.
- For the notarization, she claimed it was her ministerial d