Heirs of Alilano v. Examen
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Pedro and Florentina Alilano were the holders of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-23261 covering a parcel of land in Sultan Kudarat. In 1984, two Absolute Deeds of Sale were executed by the spouses in favor of Ramon Examen and his wife, Edna. These documents were notarized by respondent Atty. Roberto Examen, who is the brother of the vendee, Ramon. Pedro and Florentina died in 1985 and 1989, respectively. Procedural History: In 2002, the heirs of Alilano filed a suit for recovery of possession against Edna and Atty. Examen. During these proceedings, Atty. Examen introduced the 1984 Deeds of Sale into evidence. In 2003, the heirs filed a disbarment complaint before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) recommended disbarment, finding that the deeds were falsified and that the residence certificate numbers used belonged to Florentina, not Ramon. The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) modified the penalty to a one-year suspension from the practice of law and a two-year disqualification from reappointment as a Notary Public. The Petition: The complainants alleged that Atty. Examen violated the Notarial Law by notarizing documents for a relative and by using incorrect residence certificate numbers. They further argued that he falsely acknowledged the appearance of witnesses and introduced falsified documents into court. Atty. Examen defended himself by stating that the Spanish Notarial Law prohibition on relatives was repealed by the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, that the residence certificate error was a clerical mistake by his secretary made in good faith, and that the administrative action had already prescribed under IBP rules.
Issue(s)
Whether the administrative complaint against Atty. Examen is barred by prescription. Whether Atty. Examen was prohibited from notarizing the deeds of sale involving his brother under the law prevailing in 1984. Whether Atty. Examen is administratively liable for the incorrect notation of residence certificates and the introduction of the deeds into evidence.
Ruling
Respondent Atty. Roberto E. Examen is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO (2) YEARS. His present notarial commission is REVOKED, and he is DISQUALIFIED from reappointment as a notary public for two (2) years.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that there is no prescription in bar discipline cases. This policy has been consistent since 1967 to prevent lawyers from evading liability simply because a complainant did not immediately come forward. The Court emphasized its duty to protect the integrity of the legal profession regardless of the time elapsed since the commission of the act. Consequently, Rule VIII, Section 1 of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Rules of Procedure, which attempted to impose a prescriptive period, was declared void for being ultra vires. Erring members of the bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court through the passage of time. On Issue 2: The complainants argued that the respondent was disqualified from notarizing the deeds because the vendee was his brother. While the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889 contained such a prohibition, the Court clarified that this law was repealed by the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. Under the law in force in 1984, there was no specific prohibition against a notary public notarizing a document where a party was a relative. The Court noted that such a disqualification was only reintroduced later in the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Therefore, the respondent did not violate the law specifically regarding the relationship with the party at the time of the act. On Issue 3: The Court found the respondent liable for failing to properly verify the residence certificate numbers in the deeds. Notarization is not a routine or meaningless act; it is invested with substantive public interest and converts a private document into a public one. The respondent's defense that the error was committed by his secretary was rejected because the duty to function as a notary is personal. By perfunctorily notarizing documents without checking their accuracy, the respondent violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). A lawyer is mandated to discharge the duties of a notary public with accuracy, fidelity, and utmost care to maintain public confidence in the legal system.
Main Doctrine
Administrative actions against members of the Bar are sui generis and do not prescribe, as the Court's duty to protect the integrity of the legal profession is not limited by time. Furthermore, while the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 (which repealed the Spanish Notarial Law) did not prohibit notarizing documents for relatives, a notary public remains personally responsible for the accuracy of all entries, including residence certificate details. Delegating these duties to a secretary does not absolve the lawyer of administrative liability for negligence or misconduct.