Williams v. Icao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Marisa Bacatan Williams and Orlando Verar Rian, Jr. filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Rodrigo Icao for violation of the Notarial Law and for unlawful, dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct. They alleged that on May 23, 2002, respondent notarized a Declaration of Heirship and Partition, making it appear that three signatories – Lucia Briones, Ramon Verar, and Martin Umbac – signed in his presence when they did not. Evidence presented included testimony from a signatory stating he carried the document to other signatories, discrepancies in the dates of signing (January 14, 2002, in Bacong vs. May 23, 2002, in Dumaguete City), inconsistencies in the signature of Lucia Briones and her known residence, and irregularities in the spelling of the Ventolero family name and the use of thumbmarks. Petitioners also charged respondent with conspiring with Atty. Rudy T. Enriquez in the falsification of the document. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Commissioner recommended that respondent be reprimanded for violation of the Notarial Law. However, the IBP Board of Governors dismissed the case for lack of merit. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, which the IBP forwarded to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners sought the disbarment of respondent for alleged violations of the Notarial Law and professional misconduct.
Issue(s)
Whether the administrative complaint against the respondent has prescribed. Whether the respondent violated the Notarial Law and engaged in dishonest, immoral, and deceitful conduct unbecoming of an attorney.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. Atty. Rodrigo Icao is SUSPENDED from the practice of law and from his commission as a notary public for a period of one year, effective immediately, with a warning that a commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription: The Court reiterated its settled ruling that administrative proceedings against lawyers do not prescribe. Citing Frias v. Bautista-Lozada and Heck v. Santos, the Court held that the prescriptive period provided in Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Rules of Procedure of the CBD-IBP is void and of no legal effect for being ultra vires, as it runs counter to the Court's established doctrines. The inherent power of the Supreme Court to regulate the practice of law includes the power to entertain administrative complaints, and any rule that limits this power through prescription is invalid. Therefore, the defense of prescription raised by the respondent is untenable. On the merits of the violation of the Notarial Law and professional misconduct: The Court found that the respondent violated the Notarial Law by notarizing a document that did not bear the residence certificate number of one of the signatories, Lucia Briones, and by failing to record the required information. This omission is a mandatory requirement under the Notarial Law then effective. Furthermore, the respondent admitted that the document was not signed in his presence, yet he failed to require the signatories to affix their signatures in his presence when they appeared before him to acknowledge their signatures. This contravenes the duty of a notary public to ensure that documents are signed in his presence. The document also contained false statements, such as listing Atty. Enriquez as an heir when he was merely counsel, and discrepancies regarding the death date of Aurea Briones Ventolero and the relationship of the signatories to the deceased. By notarizing a document with patent falsities and failing to observe the required formalities, the respondent failed to discharge his duty to inform himself of the facts and to avoid participation in illegal enterprises. Notarization is a substantive act imbued with public interest, requiring utmost care from notaries public to maintain public confidence.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must personally witness the signing of a document presented for notarization and must ensure that all required formalities, such as the presentation and recording of residence certificates, are complied with. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Notarial Law and may lead to suspension or disbarment. Administrative complaints against lawyers for misconduct do not prescribe.