Tenoso v. Echanez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Efigenia M. Tenoso (complainant) filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez (respondent), alleging that he engaged in unauthorized notarial practice in Cordon, Isabela. To support her claim, she submitted certifications from the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City, Isabela, confirming that respondent was not included in the list of commissioned notaries public for the years 2006 to 2008. She also provided copies of ten documents notarized by the respondent during that period. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found the respondent liable and recommended a six-month suspension from the practice of law and a two-year disqualification from being commissioned as a notary. The IBP Board of Governors subsequently modified this recommendation, increasing the suspension period to one year. The respondent failed to file a Motion for Reconsideration or any subsequent pleading after the IBP's resolution. The Petition: The matter was transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action under Rule 139-B. In his initial Answer, the respondent offered bare denials, asserting he never notarized any documents and suggesting that the signatures on the submitted documents were forged or tampered with. However, he failed to attend the mandatory conference or submit a Position Paper to substantiate his claims of forgery or political harassment.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez engaged in notarial practice without a valid notarial commission. Whether the respondent's actions constitute a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) warranting disciplinary sanctions.
Ruling
WHEREFORE, We find Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez guilty of engaging in notarial practice without a notarial commission, and accordingly, We SUSPEND him from the practice of law for two (2) years and DISQUALIFY him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall merit a more severe sanction.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that the respondent indeed practiced as a notary public without the required commission. Under Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the burden of proof lies with the party who alleges the truth of a claim; here, the complainant successfully discharged this burden by presenting official certifications from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Executive Judge. The respondent's defense consisted solely of bare denials and unsupported allegations that the documents were 'tampered and adulterated' or that his signature was forged. Applying the doctrine in Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator v. Gutierrez, the Court held that a party's resort to bare denials without submitting evidence cannot overcome positive documentary evidence. Consequently, the Court concluded that the respondent repeatedly notarized documents without the requisite authority. On Issue 2: The Court held that the respondent's conduct fell miserably short of the high standards of morality, honesty, and integrity required of lawyers. By misrepresenting himself as a notary public, the respondent violated Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which prohibits engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct, and Rule 10.01, which forbids doing any falsehood. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a meaningless act but a public function that converts private documents into public instruments admissible in evidence. By performing this function without a commission, the respondent exposed the public and the courts to the perils of fraudulent documents posing as public instruments. Given the gravity of the deceit and the repeated nature of the acts, the Court increased the penalty to a two-year suspension from the practice of law and a two-year disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.
Main Doctrine
The duties of notaries public are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Notarization is a significant act that transforms private documents into public instruments, which are then afforded a presumption of authenticity. Consequently, a lawyer who engages in notarial practice without a valid commission from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) violates the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Such conduct constitutes a failure to maintain the high standards of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing required of an officer of the court, warranting suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from future notarial commissions.