Santiago v. Rafanan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Jonar Santiago, an employee of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), filed a verified Complaint for disbarment against Atty. Edison V. Rafanan. The charges included deceit, malpractice, gross misconduct, and violations of specific Canons of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Santiago alleged that Atty. Rafanan failed to make proper notations regarding community tax certificates of affiants, failed to enter details of notarized documents in the notarial register, and failed to make the required certification with his Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) and Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) numbers on notarized documents, all in violation of the Notarial Law. Additionally, Santiago accused Atty. Rafanan of executing an affidavit in favor of his clients and offering it as evidence while actively representing them, and of accosting Santiago after a hearing, disarming him, and uttering insulting words and veiled threats. Procedural History: Atty. Rafanan admitted administering oaths but believed non-notation of residence certificates was permissible for affidavits related to pending cases and cited common practice among other notaries. He argued that as counsel, he had the option to comply or not with the certification requirement under the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Regarding the charge of being a witness for his client, he asserted his testimony was essential to the ends of justice as his clients were in his house when the alleged crime occurred. He also claimed the complaint was filed to harass him due to his involvement in other cases. The Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) proceeded with hearings, receiving pleadings and memoranda. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the Investigating Commissioner's report, finding Atty. Rafanan guilty of violating the Notarial Law regarding certification, notarial register entries, and residence certificate notation, imposing a fine of ₱3,000 with a warning. Other charges were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the IBP's Resolution and Recommendation.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Rafanan violated the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether Atty. Rafanan's act of executing an affidavit in favor of his clients, while representing them, violated Rule 12.08 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether the charge of harassment and uttering veiled threats was sufficiently proven.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Resolution of the IBP Board of Governors. Atty. Edison V. Rafanan was found guilty of violating the Notarial Law and Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was fined ₱3,000 with a warning against future similar infractions. The other charges were dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that notaries public are mandated to comply strictly with the Notarial Law, which requires proper notation of residence certificates, entries in the notarial register, and the execution of certifications including PTR and IBP numbers. These formalities are substantive and cannot be neglected, as notarization imbues a private document with public character and admissibility in evidence. The respondent's belief that these requirements were not mandatory for affidavits in pending cases was found to be patently irrelevant and without legal basis, as the Notarial Law makes no such qualification or exception. The Court emphasized that ignorance of the law or reliance on common but unlawful practices of others is not an acceptable justification for violating mandatory legal provisions. Furthermore, as a lawyer, respondent had a graver responsibility to obey the laws and promote respect for the rule of law, and his failure to comply with the certification requirement under Section 3 of Rule 112 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure was also noted. The Court found the respondent's excuse exhibited clear ignorance of the Notarial Law and the importance of his office. On the charge of being a lawyer-witness for his client: The Court found no administrative liability for Atty. Rafanan's execution of an affidavit corroborating his clients' alibi. While Rule 12.08 of the CPR advises lawyers to avoid testifying for their clients, it provides exceptions where testimony is on formal matters or on substantial matters essential to the ends of justice, provided the lawyer entrusts the trial to another counsel. The Court considered the affidavit essential for the defense of the accused, whose liberty was at stake, and noted that the complainant did not dispute its contents. Moreover, the affidavit was submitted during the preliminary investigation, which is merely inquisitorial and not a trial on the merits. However, the Court reminded respondent to refrain from accepting employment where he knows he may be an essential witness and to withdraw from active management of cases in the future if his testimony becomes essential. On the charge of harassment and uttering veiled threats: The Court found no evidence to support the charge that respondent harassed the complainant, uttered insulting words, or made veiled threats. The Court considered the respondent's version more credible, as it was corroborated by affidavits of police officers and certifications from the police department. The Court reiterated the principle that allegation is not equivalent to proof, and a bare charge cannot establish liability.
Main Doctrine
Notaries public are expected to exert utmost care in the performance of their duties, which are impressed with public interest. Failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Notarial Law, such as the proper notation of residence certificates and entries in the notarial register, constitutes a violation for which sanctions may be imposed. While lawyers may testify on behalf of their clients in exceptional circumstances where their testimony is essential to the ends of justice, they must adhere to the rules and withdraw from active trial management.