Laquindanum v. Quintana
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Executive Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Midsayap, Cotabato, observed that Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana was performing notarial acts in Midsayap despite his commission being limited to Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao. Investigation revealed that Atty. Quintana's wife also performed notarial acts in his absence. Furthermore, Atty. Quintana notarized a Deed of Donation in 2004 where one of the signatories, Honorata Rosil, had been deceased since March 12, 2003. Procedural History: Judge Laquindanum filed a letter-complaint with the Supreme Court. The Court required a comment from Atty. Quintana and subsequently referred the matter to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) for investigation, report, and recommendation. The OBC conducted hearings where evidence of unauthorized notarization and expired commissions (for the years 2006-2007) was presented. The Petition: This is an administrative case for disciplinary action. Atty. Quintana argued that as a lawyer in good standing, he could practice law and notarize anywhere in the Philippines. He claimed Midsayap was part of the Province of Cotabato and thus within his reach. He also blamed his wife for unauthorized acts, claiming he did not authorize her and even scolded her for it. He eventually asked for forgiveness, citing the commission as his family's primary source of income.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Quintana violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing documents outside his territorial jurisdiction. Whether Atty. Quintana is liable for notarial acts performed by his wife. Whether notarizing a document for a deceased signatory and with an expired commission constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Lawyer's Oath.
Ruling
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the notarial commission of Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana, if still existing, is hereby REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years. He is also SUSPENDED from the practice of law for six (6) months effective immediately, with a WARNING that the repetition of a similar violation will be dealt with even more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that under Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a person commissioned as a notary public may perform notarial acts only within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Atty. Quintana's commission was for Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao, while Midsayap is part of the Province of Cotabato (North Cotabato). His argument that he could notarize anywhere in the Philippines as a lawyer is devoid of merit because notarial authority is a specific commission, not an inherent right of bar membership. The Court emphasized that notarizing outside the commissioned area partakes of malpractice and falsification. This territorial limitation ensures that executive judges can effectively monitor the activities of notaries public within their specific bounds. On Issue 2: The Court ruled that a notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register and the activities in his office. Citing Lingan v. Calubaquib (A.C. No. 5377, 2006), the Court clarified that a notary cannot pass the buck to secretaries or, in this case, his wife. By allowing his wife to perform notarial acts, Atty. Quintana violated Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which prohibits lawyers from directly or indirectly assisting in the unauthorized practice of law. He is responsible for the acts of his personnel, especially when they involve the exercise of his specific legal authority. The defense that he did not authorize his wife and even scolded her was insufficient to absolve him of administrative liability. On Issue 3: Notarizing a document without the personal presence of the signatory, especially when the signatory is deceased, is a grave violation of Section 2(b)(1), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Such an act also violates Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) and the Lawyer's Oath, which requires lawyers to avoid declaring any falsehood. Furthermore, notarizing with an expired commission is a form of deliberate falsehood as it deceives the public into believing the lawyer is still duly authorized. The Court reiterated that notarization is not a mere routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest. The protection of this interest requires that only those qualified and authorized may act as notaries public to maintain the integrity of public documents.
Main Doctrine
The act of notarizing documents outside one's area of commission is not to be taken lightly; it partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. A notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register and cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the buck to staff or family members. Furthermore, notarization is a privilege imbued with public interest, converting private documents into public ones, and must be performed with strict adherence to the presence and identity of signatories. Failure to comply with these rules constitutes a violation of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).