SANCHEZ vs.

TUPAS
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 1
2004.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1687-P (Rafael Sanchez vs. Rubie P. Tupas, Clerk of Court, MCTC,
Barotac, Viejo, Iloilo.)
For resolution is a verified complaint dated June 16, 2003 filed by Rafael Sanchez
charging Clerk of Court Rubie Tupas with unauthorized practice of law.
Complainant alleges that a criminal complaint was filed against him relative to the
seizure of his fishing boat named M/BCA Connie 14 he allegedly lent to one
Antonio Galla for violation of section 90 (Use of Active Gear) of R.A. No. 8550
otherwise known as the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998[1]; that said complaint
and its supporting affidavit were subscribed and sworn to by the complaining
witness and the affiants before the respondent Clerk of Court Rubie Tupas who is not
a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and therefore engaged in
unauthorized practice of law.
In her Comment, respondent Clerk of Court states that her administration of oath to
the persons who executed the criminal complaint and its supporting affidavit filed
before the court was done under the color of authority attached to the to the
position of a Clerk of Court under Section 3, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal procedure. Respondent avers that under this rule, she is considered a
public officer charged with the enforcement of the law, and as such, she can
administer oaths and that her acts done as a clerk of court, such as notarizing
criminal complaints and its supporting affidavit filed in court, are considered as
among those which are related in the exercise of her duties.
In his Reply, complainant insist that respondent Clerk of Courts allegations are but
her presumptuous and erroneous interpretation of the law; that the complaint and
joint affidavit notarized by respondent Clerk of Court are pleadings filed in court of
law for the commencement of a criminal prosecution, hence, only lawyers and
members of the IBP and not a mere court employee as the respondent Clerk of
Court can notarize said instruments; and that Section 3, Rule 110 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure cited by respondent Clerk of Court enumerates the
persons authorized by law to file the complaint and not the persons who may
notarize the complaint.
In a Memorandum dated January 9, 2004, the Office of the Court Administrator
recommends the dismissal of the complaint against respondent. The Court
approves the recommendation. The complaint of Rafael Sanchez is bereft of merit.
Section 3(a) Rule 112 of the revised Rules of criminal Procedure provides that
affidavits of complainants and his witnesses as well as other supporting documents

shall be sworn to before, among others, government officials authorized to

administer oaths.
Section 41 of the Administrative code of 1987 as amended by R.A. No. 6788 reads:
Section 41. Officers Authorized to Administer Oath. The following officers have
general authority to administer oaths: President; Vice President; Members and
Secretaries of both Houses of the Congress; Members of the Judiciary; Sectaries of
Departments; Provincial governors and lieutenant-governors; city mayors; municipal
mayors; bureau directors; regional directors; clerk of courts, register of deeds; other
civilian officers in public service of the government of the Philippines whose
appointments are vested in the President and are subject to confirmation by the
Commission on Appointments; all other constitutional officers; and notaries public.
(Emphasis supplied)
The term clerk of courts in the aforequoted provision is used as a general term.
No specification was made as to the Court to which said clerks of court belong. The
intention of the law is clear, to remove the limitation, and, hence, to authorize all
clerk of courts regardless of whether they are clerks of the Metropolitan Trial courts,
Municipal Trial Court and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts, to administer oaths on
matter involving official business.[2] Hence, as Clerk of Court of MCTC, respondent
has the authority to administer oath of affidavits of parties and witnesses which are
to be filed in court.
ACCORDINGLY, the instant complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court