A.M. No.
RTJ-15-2406 February 18, 2015
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3638-RTJ]
BENITO B. NATE, Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE LELU P. CONTRERAS, Branch 43, Regional Trial Court, Virac, Catanduanes (then Clerk of Court,
RTC-Iriga City), Respondent.
SERENO, C.J.
While we agree with her that clerks of court are allowed to perform the notarial act of copy certification, this act must
still be connected to the exercise of their official functions and duties — meaning to say, it must be done in
connection with public documents and records that are, by virtue of their position, in their custody. Respondent
herself admits that the document was filed before the National Labor Relations Commission in Naga City, not the
RTC-Iriga City. Thus, in the regular course of her duties, she would not have come across, encountered, or been in
custody of the document.
FACTS:
Complainant Atty. Benito B. Nate calls the attention of this Court to the supposed grave misconduct of respondent
Contreras while she was still clerk of court and ex officio provincial sheriff of RTC-Iriga City. According to him, there
were three instances in which respondent abused her authority.
First, respondent Contreras allegedly notarized an administrative complaint that was prepared by her own father and
led with this Court sometime in June 2003. Complainant Nate stresses that respondent could not have legally
notarized a document. He points out that Section 3, Rule 4 of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice disqualifies notaries
from performing a notarial act if they are related to the principal within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity. Furthermore, he argues that respondent acted beyond her authority when she notarized in Iriga City a
document that was signed in the Municipality of Buhi, which was outside that city. We note that complainant was the
subject of the administrative complaint filed by respondent's father.
Next, complainant Nate claims that respondent certified a document as a true copy of the original, and that her sister-
in-law later on used the certified document in a labor case then pending with the National Labor Relations
Commission in Naga City. He points out that respondent, as an ex officio notary public, was empowered to
authenticate only those documents that were in her custody. Since the document — an amended labor complaint —
was not a document pending before the RTC-Iriga City, respondent allegedly went beyond her authority when she
authenticated it.
Finally, purportedly without this Court's prior written authority, respondent Contreras appeared as her father's
counsel before the Commission on Bar Discipline of the IBP. Complainant Nate alleges that respondent herself
admitted during the proceedings before the IBP that she had not yet obtained a written authority.
ISSUES
WON Contreras is administratively liable for the following acts:
1. Affixing her signature to the jurat portion of the administrative complaint prepared by her father (YES)
2. Authenticating documents as genuine copies of the original labor complaint (YES)
3. Appearing as counsel before the IBP on behalf of her father (NO)
RULING
1. Proceeding now to the first act complained about, we agree with the OCA findings that respondent's act of affixing
her signature to the jurat portion of the administrative complaint prepared by her father had no direct relation to her
work as the then clerk of court of RTC-Iriga City. Under Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court, the proceedings involving
the disbarment and discipline of attorneys shall be conducted before the IBP. This means that clerks of court are not
among the touchpoints in the regular procedure pertaining to complaints against an attorney. Neither may a pleading
in a case involving lawyers be filed with the RTC.
2. We apply the same legal reasoning to the second act of respondent being complained about; that is, her
certification of a copy of her sister-in-law's labor complaint. Respondent herself admits that the document was filed
before the National Labor Relations Commission in Naga City, not the RTC-Iriga City. Thus, in the regular course of
her duties, she would not have come across, encountered, or been in custody of the document. While we agree with
her that clerks of court are allowed to perform the notarial act of copy certification, this act must still be connected to
the exercise of their official functions and duties — meaning to say, it must be done in connection with public
documents and records that are, by virtue of their position, in their custody.
3. With regard to the third act, we reiterate that the primary employment of court personnel must be their full-time
position in the judiciary, which is the chief concern requiring their dutiful attention. Nevertheless, we recognize that
the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees does allow for limited exceptions.
Section 7 (b) thereof in relation to Rule X, Section 1 (c) of its implementing rules, provides that public officials and
employees are prohibited from engaging in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the
Constitution, law, or regulation; and under the condition that their practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their
official functions. Respondent has satisfactorily proved that she was granted authority by this Court to "represent her
father in Administrative Case No. 6089 provided that she files the corresponding leaves of absence on the scheduled
dates of hearing of the case and that she will not use o cial time in preparing for the case." We thus agree with the
OCA recommendation that she did not commit any irregularity when she represented her father before the IBP.
