G.R. No. MTJ-99-1239, MTJ-05-1595, MTJ-05-1596. July 29, 2005
VICENTE M. BATIC and HORST FRANZ ELLERT, Complainants, vs. JUDGE VICTORIO L. GALAPON, JR., Municipal Trial Court of Dulag, Leyte, Respondent.

FACTS

Three consolidated administrative complaints were filed against Judge Victorio L. Galapon, Jr. The first, by Vicente Batic, alleged the judge issued a warrant of arrest dated March 18, 1997, two days before the criminal complaint was officially filed on March 20, 1997. Batic also charged the judge with unauthorized notarial practice for notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale in 1990. The second and third complaints, by Horst Ellert, similarly alleged premature issuance of the same arrest warrant and further accused the judge of preparing and notarizing a deed that inaccurately described Ellert’s wife as “single,” allegedly to deprive him of conjugal property.
Judge Galapon defended the warrant’s issuance, explaining that the complainants in the criminal case swore to their statements before him on March 17-18, 1997. Finding probable cause on March 18, he ordered the warrant’s issuance, but it was typed and signed on March 20 due to time constraints and his leave. The March 18 date reflected the drafting date, while the clerk of court’s stamp showed the filing date. Regarding notarization, he claimed he only acknowledged the deed, collected a fee for the clerk of court, and acted because the sole local notary public was out of town, believing municipal judges could act as ex-officio notaries in such instances.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Galapon is administratively liable for: (1) prematurely issuing a warrant of arrest, and (2) notarizing a private document.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the charges related to the warrant of arrest but found Judge Galapon guilty of unauthorized notarization. On the first issue, the Court accepted the judge’s explanation as plausible. The procedural lapse in dating was innocuous, as the warrant was not released for implementation before the complaint was filed. The essence of the requirement—that a warrant issues only after a complaint is filed—was substantially complied with, and technicalities should not override the pursuit of justice.
On the second issue, the Court found the judge liable. Supreme Court Circular No. 1-90 strictly limits judges to notarizing only documents connected with their official duties. An exception exists only if there is absolutely no notary public in the municipality. Here, a notary public was commissioned in Dulag, Leyte; his temporary absence did not justify the judge’s act. This constituted unauthorized practice of law, a Less Serious Charge under Rule 140. Considering this was a repeated offense (he had been previously sanctioned for the same act), the Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱20,000) with a stern warning. His subsequent directive to clerks to stop accepting unauthorized notarizations did not mitigate his liability, as it was done after the complaints were filed.