Heinz Heck vs.

Judge Santos
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1657, February 23, 2004

Subject matter: Notarizing Documents Without Notarial Commission and

Disbarment of a Retired Judge

Facts: This is a novel issue wherein may a retired judge charged with notarizing
documents without the requisites notary commission more than 20 years
ago. The petitoner, Heck, filed a complaint against respondent, Judge
Santos, alleging that the former violated the notarial law. Petitioner alleged
that Judge Santos was not duly commissioned as a notary public but he still
subscribed and forwarded notarized documents to the Clerk of Court.

The complaint alleged that Santos subscribed and forwarded, on a non-

regular basis, notarized documents since January 1980, when in fact, it was
only until January 9, 1984, that he became a duly commissioned notary
public. The complaint further alleged that Judge Santos failed to forward his
Notarial Register after the expiration of his commission in December 1989.

Issue: Can a retired judge perform notarial duties without commission?

Ruling: NO. Respondent Judge Anthony E. Santos is GUILTY of notarizing

documents without the requisite notarial commission therefor. The
retirement or resignation of a judge will not preclude the filing thereafter of
an administrative charge against him for which he shall still be held
answerable if found guilty. It is settled that a judge may be disciplined for
acts committed prior to his appointment to the judiciary and that an
administrative complaint against a member of the BAR does not prescribe.

The respondent did not object to the complaint’s evidence neither did he
claim that he was commissioned as notary public for the years 1980-1983,
nor deny the accuracy of such. He merely answered that there was no proper
recording of the commissioned lawyers in the City of Cagayan de Oro nor of
the submitted Notarized Documents/Notarial Register.

However, considering that the complaint against respondent was filed

twenty-four (24) years after the commission of the act complained of and
that there was no private offended party who came forward and claimed to
have been adversely affected by the documents so notarized, the action for
disbarment will not prosper. Respondent, as a retired judge, deserved to
enjoy the full measure of his well-earned retirement benefits.