BAR MATTER NO.

702 May 12, 1994

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.

Petitioner Royo M. Gampong, a Bachelor of Laws (LIB) graduate of Notre Dame University who was
admitted to the Philippine Shari'a Bar on October 7, 1991, filed the instant petition praying that this Court,
after due notice and hearing, issue an order authorizing all Shari'a District Court Judges to appoint Shari'a
Lawyers who possess the qualifications and none of the disqualifications as notaries public within their
respective jurisdictions.

Petitioner: Shari'a District Court Judges may be authorized to appoint the members of the Philippine
Shari'a Bar as Notaries Public. 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

ISSUE: Whether or not Shari’a District Court Judges have the capacity to appoint Shari’a Lawyers as
Notaries Public. [NO]

RULING: The appointment, qualification, jurisdiction and powers of notaries public are governed by the
provisions of the Notarial Law embodied in Sections 231 to Section 241, Chapter 11 of the Revised
Administrative Code, Section 232 of the Revised Administrative Code as amended by Executive Order
No. 41, May 11, 1945 provides:

Sec. 232. Appointment of notaries public. — Judges of Court of First Instance

(now Regional Trial Court) in the respective may appoint as many notaries public
as the public good requires, and there shall be at least one for every municipality
in each province. Notaries public in the City of Manila shall be appointed by one
of the judges of the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Manila
to be chosen by the judges of the branches of said court" (Words in parenthesis
supplied)

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 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.

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" 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

Furthermore, the qualifications for appointment as a judge of a Shari'a District Court are different from
those required of a judge of a Regional Trial Court under Section 15 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 which
provides:

Sec. 15. Qualifications — No person shall be appointed Regional trial Court

Judge unless he is a natural born citizen of the Philippines, at least thirty-five
years of age, and, for at least ten years, has been engaged in the practice of law
in the Philippines requiring admission to the practice of law as an indispensable
requirement.

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:

Sec. 233. Qualifications for Appointment. — To be eligible for appointment as

notary public, a person must be a citizen of the Philippines (or of the United
States) and over twenty-one years of age. He must, furthermore, be a person
who has been admitted to the practice of law or who has completed and passed
in the studies of law in a reputable university or school of law, or has passed the
examination for the office of the peace or clerk or deputy clerk of court, or be a
person who had qualified for the office of notary public under the Spanish
sovereignty.

In the chartered cities and in the capitals of the provinces, where there are two or
more lawyers appointed as notaries public, no person other than a lawyer or a
person who had qualified to hold the office of notary public under the Spanish
sovereignty shall hold said office.

In municipalities or municipal districts where no person resides having the

qualifications herein before specified or having them, refuses to hold such office,
judges of first instance may appoint other persons temporarily to exercise the
office of notary public who have the requisite qualifications or fitness and
morality.

Only a person duly admitted as members of the Philippine Bar in accordance with the Rules of Court are
entitled to practice law before the regular courts. Section 1, Rule 138 of the Revised Rules of Court
provides:

Sec. 1. Who may practice law. — Any person heretofore duly admitted as a
member of the bar, or hereafter admitted as such in accordance with the
provisions of this rule, and who is in good and regular standing, is entitled to
practice law.
This Court further emphasized in its resolution in Bar Matter 681, that:

In order to be admitted as member of the Philippine Bar, the candidate must pass
an examination for admission covering the following subjects: Political and
International Law; Labor and Social Legislation; Civil Law and Taxation;
Mercantile Law; Criminal Law; Remedial Law; and Legal Ethics and Practical
Exercises (Sec. 11, Rule 138) Further, in order that a candidate may be deemed
to have passed the bar examination, he must have obtained a general average of
75% in all the aforementioned subjects without failing below 50% in any subject
(Sec. 14, Rule 138). On the other hand, the subjects covered by the special bar
examination for Shari'a courts are: (1) Jurisprudence (Fiqh) and Customary laws
(Adat); (2) Persons, Family Relations and Property; (3) Successions,
Wills/Adjudication and Settlement of Property; (4) Procedure in Shari'a Courts
(See Resolution dated September 20, 1983).

It is quite obvious that the subject matter of the two examinations are different.
The Philippine Bar Examination covers the entire range of the Philippine Laws
and jurisprudence, while the Shari'a Bar Examination covers Muslim personal
laws and jurisprudence only. Hence, a person who has passed the Shari'a Bar
Examination, who is not a lawyer, is not qualified to practice law before the
regular courts because he has not passed the requisite examinations for
admission as a member of the Philippine Bar. However, the Shari'a bar lawyer
may appear before the Municipal Trial Courts as agent or friend of a litigant, if
appointed by the latter for the purpose but not before the Regional Trial Courts
as only duly authorized members of the Bar may conduct litigations in the latter
court (Sec. 34, Rule 138).

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.

WHEREFORE, the petition to authorize Shari'a District Court Judges to appoint Shari'a Lawyers as
notaries public in their respective jurisdiction is DENIED.