Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SC en Banc Resolution Dated September 20,1983
SC en Banc Resolution Dated September 20,1983
Gentlemen:
Bar Matter No. 702 (In the Matter of Petition to authorize Sharia'h District
Court Judges to Appoint Shari'a Lawyers as Notaries Public, Atty. Royo M.
Gampong, petitioner)
On the theory that Shari'a District Courts are co-equal with the regular
Regional Trial Courts in the hierarchy of the Philippine Judicial System,
petitioner claims that by analogy, Shari'a District Court Judges may be
authorized to appoint the members of the Philippine Shari'a Bar. Petitioner
further argues that, being a special member of the Philippine Bar and a
practicing Shari'a lawyer, notarial work is indispensable and imperative in the
exercise of his profession; therefore, he is qualified to be appointed as notary
public by Shari'a District Judge. Petitioner likewise claims that Shari'a lawyers
cannot be appointed as notaries public in their places of residence and in
cities and other pilot centers where Shari'a courts are established because the
RTC Executive Judges in Cotabato and Maguindanao require them to secure
certifications from the IBP Secretary that there are no practicing lawyers in the
place where they are applying. Thus, Shari'a lawyers lose their chance to be
appointed as notaries public because of the policy of the IBP chapters in
Region 12 to appoint regular IBP members practically in all municipalities and
provinces.
Strictly speaking, Shari'a District Courts do not form part of the integrated
judicial system of the Philippines. Section 2 of the Judiciary Reorganization
Acts of 1980 (B.P. Blg. 129) enumerates the courts covered by the Act,
comprising the integrated judicial system. Shari'a Courts are not included in
the enumeration notwithstanding that, when said B.P. Blg. 129 took effect on
August 14, 1981, P.D. No. 1083 (otherwise known as "Code of Muslim
Personal Laws of the Philippines") was already in force. The Shari'a Courts
are mentioned in Section 45 of the Act only for the purpose of including them
"in the funding appropriations."
The fact that judges thereof are required by law to possess the same
qualifications as those of Regional Trial Courts does not signify that the
Shari'a Court is a regular court like the Regional Trial Court. The latter is a
court of general jurisdiction, i.e., competent to decide all cases, civil and
criminal, within its jurisdiction. A Shari'a District Court, created pursuant to
Article 137 of Presidential Decree No. 1083, is a court of limited jurisdiction,
exercising original only over cases specifically enumerated in Article 143
thereof. In other words, a Shari'a District Court is not a regular court
exercising general jurisdiction within the meaning of Section 232 of the
Notarial Law.
The fact, too, that Shari'a Courts are called "courts" does not imply that they
are on equal footing or are identical with regular courts, for the word "court"
may be applied to tribunals which are not actually judicial in character, but are
quasi-judicial agencies, like the Securities and Exchange Commission, Land
Registration Authority, Social Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Boards,
Bureau of Patents, Trademark and Technology, Energy Regulatory Board,
etc. 1
Moreover, decisions of the Shari'a District Courts are not elevated to this
Court by appeal under Rule 41, or by petition for review under Rule 45, of the
Rules of Court. Their decisions are final "whether on appeal from the Shari'a
Circuit Court or not" 2 and hence, may reach this Court only by way of a
special civil action under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, similar to those of the
National Labor Relations Commission, or the Central Board of Assessment
Appeals. 3
In case of Shari'a Court judges, on the other hand, a Special Bar Examination
for Shari'a Courts was authorized by the Supreme Court in its En
Banc resolution dated September 20, 1983. Those who pass said examination
are qualified for appointment for Shari'a court judges and for admission to
special membership in the Philippine Bar to practice law in the Shari'a courts
pursuant to Article 152, in relation to Articles 148 and 158 of P.D. No. 1083.
Said Article 152, P.D. No. 1083 provides, thus:
The authority thus conferred by the Notarial Law upon judges of the Court of
First Instance, now the Regional Trial Court, in their respective provinces to
appoint notaries public cannot be expanded to cloth the judges of the Shari'a
District Court with the same statutory authority. The authority to appoint
notaries public contemplated under Section 232 of the Notarial Law and the
corresponding supervising authority over them authorized under Section 248
thereof require the qualifications and experience of an RTC Judge.
It must be made clear in this regard that since a person who has passed the
Shari'a Bar Examination does not automatically become a regular member of
the Philippine Bar, he lacks the necessary qualification to be appointed a
notary public. Section 233 of the Notarial Law provides for the qualifications
for appointment as notary public, thus:
In an En Banc resolution of the Court dated August 5, 1993, in Bar Matter No.
681 "Re: Petition to Allow Shari'a Lawyers to exercise their profession at the
regular courts," this Court categorically stated that a person who has passed
the Shari'a Bar Examination is only a special member of the Philippine Bar
and not a full-fledged member thereof even if he is a Bachelor of Laws degree
holder. As such, he is authorized to practice only in the Shari'a courts.
This Court further emphasized in its resolution in Bar Matter 681, that:
Considering, therefore that a person who has passed the Shari'a Bar
Examination is only a special member of the Philippine Bar and not a full-
fledged member thereof even if he holds a Bachelor of Laws Degree, he is not
qualified to practice to qualified to practice law before the regular courts. As a
general rule, a Shari'a Lawyer is not possessed of the basic requisite of
"practice of law" in order to be appointed as a notary public under Section 233
of the Notarial Law in relation to Section 1, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of
Court.
LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
By: