Buen suceso v. Barrera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Nelson Buensuceso, et al. charged respondent Atty. Joelito T. Barrera with unauthorized notarization of documents. The core allegation was that respondent continued to perform acts of notarization and affix his seal and signature on several documents (a complaint for ejectment, affidavits, a deed of sale, and a contract to sell) after his notarial commission expired in 1978. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Iloilo Chapter found that respondent notarized five documents subject of the complaint, and four others, between July 1989 and October 1990, without a renewed commission. Respondent admitted notarizing the documents but claimed it was due to excusable inadvertence and negligence, attributing fault to his secretary. He also filed a petition for confirmation of his notarial acts. The Petition: Complainants later withdrew their administrative complaint. However, the Court noted that it was not bound by the withdrawal due to the public interest involved in the alleged acts.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Joelito T. Barrera committed unauthorized notarization of documents. Whether respondent's actions constitute malpractice and falsification of public documents. What is the appropriate penalty for respondent's conduct.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Atty. Joelito T. Barrera guilty of unauthorized notarization, malpractice, and falsification of public documents. Consequently, he was suspended from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of unauthorized notarization: The Court found that respondent Atty. Barrera continued to notarize documents for over twelve years after his notarial commission expired in 1978. The respondent admitted to notarizing five specific documents and did not present any records showing renewal of his commission. His claim of excusable inadvertence and shifting blame to his secretary was not accepted by the Court, which emphasized the diligence required of a member of the Bar in performing notarial duties. The Court cited Section 2632 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, which penalizes affixing a seal or signature after the expiration of authority with intent to impart notarial authenticity. On the issue of malpractice and falsification of public documents: The Court characterized respondent's conduct as malpractice and falsification of public documents. It highlighted that notarization converts a private document into a public one, making it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. The public, courts, and administrative agencies must be able to rely on acknowledgments executed by notaries public. The Court stressed that notarization is not an empty routine but engages public interest significantly, and unauthorized notarization by unqualified individuals imposes upon the public and courts. On the appropriate penalty: Considering the five instances of unauthorized notarization and the potential for other unidentified documents being similarly notarized, the Court deemed suspension from the practice of law for one year to be an appropriate penalty. This was in line with the recommendation of the IBP Iloilo Chapter and the gravity of the offense, which involved a violation of law and gross misconduct. The Court also referenced the case of Joson v. Baltazar where a similar offense led to disbarment, indicating that suspension was a measured response in this instance.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who continues to notarize documents after the expiration of his notarial commission, with intent to impart the appearance of notarial authenticity, commits malpractice and falsification of public documents, warranting suspension from the practice of law.