Almazan v. Suerte-Felipe
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Felipe B. Almazan, Sr. charged respondent Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe with malpractice as a notary public. The charge stemmed from respondent's notarization of an "Extra judicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De Nieva" dated "25th day of 1999." In the acknowledgment of this document, respondent stated he was a "notary public for and in the City of Marikina," despite not being registered as such for Marikina City. The document was an attachment to a complaint filed in Civil Case No. 03-849-MK. Procedural History: A Certification from the RTC of Marikina City confirmed respondent was not a commissioned notary public there from March 30, 1994, to the date of issuance. Respondent admitted notarizing the document but denied not being commissioned. He presented a Certification from the RTC of Pasig City showing his appointment as notary public for Pasig City and its municipalities for 1998-1999. Complainant filed a Reply, asserting his right to file the complaint and noting the incomplete dating of the subject document. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The Petition: The IBP Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of violating the Notarial Law and the lawyer's oath, reasoning that he could not notarize in Marikina City as it was outside his territorial jurisdiction. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this, initially recommending suspension, then modifying it to reprimand with warning and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. The Supreme Court reviewed the case.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe should be held administratively liable for malpractice as a notary public. Whether respondent violated the Notarial Law and his lawyer's oath.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe guilty of malpractice as a notary public and for violating his lawyer's oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. He was suspended from the practice of law for six (6) months, disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one (1) year, and his notarial commission, if existing, was revoked.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of administrative liability for malpractice as a notary public: The Court affirmed the findings of the IBP. Respondent, who admitted to being commissioned as a notary public only in Pasig City and its municipalities for the years 1998-1999, could not validly notarize a document in the City of Marikina. This act is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court, as explicitly stated in Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Section 240, Article II of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. The territorial limitation is a fundamental aspect of a notary public's authority, and performing notarial acts outside this limit constitutes malpractice. On the issue of violating the Notarial Law and lawyer's oath: By misrepresenting himself as a notary public for and in the City of Marikina when he was not commissioned there, respondent committed falsehood. This transgression violates the lawyer's oath to do no falsehood and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere routine act but is invested with substantive public interest, requiring adherence to strict qualifications and limitations. The act of notarizing outside one's jurisdiction, as established in cases like Tan Tiong Bio v. Atty. Gonzales and Nunga v. Atty. Viray, is considered malpractice and falsification, as it involves making it appear that one is duly commissioned when he is not, thereby indulging in deliberate falsehood.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer commissioned as a notary public is restricted to performing notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Notarizing a document outside this jurisdiction constitutes malpractice and a violation of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.