Flores v. Lozada
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The City Fiscal of Toledo City filed a disbarment complaint against Dominador E. Flores, a lawyer, for unprofessional and unethical conduct. Specifically, Flores was accused of notarizing documents in 1961 and 1962 after his commission as a notary public had expired. The complaint also alleged that Flores deliberately failed to submit certified copies of his notarial register entries and acknowledged documents to the Clerk of Court of First Instance of Cebu to hide his lack of a valid commission. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Solicitor General, who found that Flores's commission expired on December 31, 1960, and he was not recommissioned for 1961 and 1962. The Solicitor General also noted that Flores notarized several documents during this period and failed to file his monthly notarial reports and copies of documents, nor did he surrender his notarial register. Flores admitted to notarizing documents without a commission but pleaded for mercy. The case proceeded, and despite multiple postponements and warnings, Flores failed to appear for the reception of his evidence. The Solicitor General recommended disbarment. The Petition: The Supreme Court required Flores to answer the Solicitor General's report. After extensions, Flores filed an answer admitting negligence in not renewing his commission and notarizing documents without authority, but prayed for mercy. The Court set the case for hearing, but neither party appeared. Flores was given time to file a memorandum, which he never submitted. The Court found the evidence conclusive of misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Dominador E. Flores committed malpractice and violated his lawyer's oath by notarizing documents after his commission as a notary public had expired. Whether the respondent's failure to submit notarial reports and copies of acknowledged documents to the Clerk of Court constitutes a violation of the Notarial Law and grounds for disbarment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent Dominador E. Flores guilty of malpractice, gross misconduct in office as an attorney, and violation of the lawyer's oath. Consequently, the Court ordered his disbarment from the practice of law and his name to be stricken from the Roll of Attorneys. He was also ordered to surrender his lawyer's certificate of title.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The evidence conclusively established that the respondent Dominador E. Flores notarized several documents, including an extrajudicial partition and deeds of sale, during 1961 and 1962, after his commission as a notary public had expired on December 31, 1960. The respondent admitted to this negligence in his answer to the Solicitor General's report. Notarizing documents without a valid commission constitutes malpractice and a violation of the lawyer's oath, as it undermines the integrity of the notarial system and public trust. The respondent's actions, by presenting these documents to the city assessor, facilitated the transfer of tax declarations, thereby impairing the integrity of the documents and causing prejudice to property rights. The respondent's initial denial of having no commission, followed by an admission of negligence, was considered a "facile resort to contradictory denials" and trifling with the Court. On Issue 2: The respondent failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Notarial Law by not submitting his monthly notarial reports and certified copies of the documents he acknowledged before him to the Clerk of Court of First Instance of Cebu for the years 1961 and 1962. He also failed to surrender his notarial register for 1960. This omission was alleged to be a deliberate attempt to conceal the fact that he was notarizing documents without a valid commission. The Solicitor General's findings confirmed this failure. Such non-compliance with reporting requirements is a serious breach of professional duty and, in this context, served to further support the conclusion that the respondent engaged in misconduct and attempted to hide his illegal acts. The respondent's complete lack of interest in presenting a defense, despite numerous opportunities, further indicated the strength of the evidence against him.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public must strictly adhere to the terms and validity period of their commission. Notarizing documents after the expiration of the commission constitutes malpractice and a violation of the lawyer's oath. Additionally, the failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirements of the Notarial Law, such as submitting copies of acknowledged documents and notarial register entries, is a serious offense that can lead to disbarment, especially when such omissions are intended to conceal the fact that the lawyer was acting without a valid commission.