Nunga v. Viray
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: In May 1996, Victor Nunga was appointed President of the Masantol Rural Bank. Upon assuming office, he discovered that a bank asset—a 250-square meter house and lot in Kalookan City—had been sold in 1987 to Jesus Carlo Gerard M. Viray, the 18-year-old son of the bank's legal counsel, Atty. Venancio Viray. The Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized by Atty. Viray himself. Furthermore, in 1991, the property was mortgaged, and the subsequent cancellation of said mortgage was also entered into Atty. Viray's notarial registry. Procedural History: Nunga filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Viray for grave misconduct, alleging that the respondent notarized these documents without a valid notarial commission. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) conducted an investigation where the complainant presented certifications from the Clerk of Court of Pampanga. These records showed that Atty. Viray was only commissioned for the years 1981-1982, 1983-1984, and 1995-1996, but not for 1987 or 1991. The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended a revocation of any current commission and a ban on future commissions until 2002. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this but added a three-month suspension from the practice of law. The Petition: The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for final disciplinary action. Atty. Viray argued that he had been commissioned since 1965 and that his possession of a Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) proved his authority to notarize. He also claimed the complaint was merely a leverage tactic related to other criminal and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) cases involving the complainant's family. The Supreme Court reviewed whether the respondent's actions warranted more severe sanctions than those recommended by the IBP.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Venancio Viray committed grave misconduct by notarizing documents without a valid notarial commission. Whether the respondent's actions constitute a violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
Ruling
The Supreme Court finds Atty. Venancio Viray guilty of grave misconduct. The Court MODIFIES the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors. Respondent ATTY. VENANCIO VIRAY is hereby BARRED from being commissioned as a notary public for THREE (3) years, his present commission (if any) is REVOKED, and he is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for THREE (3) years.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court affirmed the Investigating Commissioner's finding that Atty. Viray lacked a notarial commission in 1987 and 1991. The evidence provided by the Clerk of Court of Pampanga was categorical in listing the specific periods of the respondent's commission, which did not include the years the assailed documents were notarized. The Court rejected the respondent's defense that his Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) served as a commission, clarifying that a PTR is merely a license to practice law and does not authorize a lawyer to perform notarial acts. Under the Notarial Law (Chapter 11, Title IV, Book I, Revised Administrative Code), a lawyer must be specifically appointed as a notary public to exercise such powers. By notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale and the cancellation of mortgage without this appointment, the respondent performed illegal acts that undermined the integrity of public documents. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a routine act but a function invested with substantive public interest, requiring strict qualification. On Issue 2: The Court held that performing notarial acts without a commission is a direct violation of the Lawyer's Oath, which mandates obedience to the laws of the land. By making it appear that he was duly commissioned when he was not, Atty. Viray engaged in 'deliberate falsehood,' which is strictly prohibited by the Lawyer's Oath. This conduct falls squarely under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which forbids lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. Furthermore, the Court found a violation of Canon 7 of the CPR, as the respondent failed to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. The misconduct was aggravated by the fact that the 1987 transaction involved his own son, who was a minor (18 years old) under the then-effective Article 402 of the Civil Code, which set the age of majority at 21. The Court concluded that the IBP's recommended penalty was too light given the gravity of the deceit and the importance of the notarial office.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court underscores that notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity and entitling it to full faith and credit. Consequently, only those duly commissioned may act as notaries public. A lawyer who notarizes documents without such a commission is guilty of grave misconduct, as they are essentially indulging in deliberate falsehood and violating their oath to obey the laws. Such conduct is a breach of Rule 1.01 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandate that lawyers uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from deceitful conduct.