Endaya v. Palay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Gina E. Endaya filed a complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Edgardo O. Palay, a notary public, for alleged violation of Canon 1, Rules 1.01 and 1.02, Canon 7, Rule 7.03, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. The complaint stemmed from the notarization of a Deed of Sale covering eight parcels of land on July 27, 2004. Endaya alleged that her father, Engr. Atilano Villaos, the supposed signatory, was confined at the Philippine Heart Center from May 27 to August 17, 2004, and was incapable of appearing before Atty. Palay in Puerto Princesa, Palawan, to affix his thumbmark. Villaos was also allegedly not of sound mind during that period and passed away on August 28, 2004. Procedural History: Atty. Palay claimed he was approached by Villaos' driver in May 2004 to render notarial services and met Villaos in his car, who allegedly begged to affix his thumbmark due to illness. Endaya presented affidavits from Dr. Carlos Tan and Villaos' driver, Arnel Villafuerte, refuting Atty. Palay's claims. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Palay failed in his duties and recommended a three-month suspension and permanent disqualification as a notary public. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this but increased the suspension to one year. Atty. Palay's motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Atty. Palay filed a second motion for reconsideration, admitting violations of canons and ethics concerning his notary duties but not his duties as counsel. He sought to lift the one-year suspension. The Supreme Court treated this as a petition for review.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Palay violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Whether the duties of a notary public are separate from the practice of law. Whether Atty. Palay's actions warrant suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from being a notary public. Whether Atty. Paul Resurreccion should be penalized for failing to file a comment.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Edgardo O. Palay guilty of violating Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Accordingly, the Court suspends him from the practice of law for six (6) months, revokes his incumbent notarial commission, if any, and disqualifies him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. The Court also finds Atty. Paul Resurreccion guilty of indirect contempt and orders him to pay a fine of P5,000.00.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: The Court held that the duties of a notary public are intricately related to the practice of law, as only members of the Philippine Bar in good standing are eligible for commission as notaries public. By notarizing a Deed of Sale without the personal appearance of the signatory, Atty. Palay directly violated Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. His act of acknowledging the Deed of Sale made it appear that Engr. Villaos personally appeared before him, which was not true. Furthermore, his false claim about being called by Villaos' driver evinced dishonesty, violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These actions adversely reflect on his fitness to be a member of the legal profession. On whether the duties of a notary public are separate from the practice of law: The Court clarified that the performance of the functions of a notary public constitutes the practice of law. This is evident from the fact that only members of the Philippine Bar in good standing are eligible to be commissioned as notaries public under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Therefore, any misconduct in the performance of notarial duties is a breach of the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. On the appropriate penalty: Considering Atty. Palay's violation of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the Court imposed a suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months. This is in addition to the revocation of his incumbent notarial commission and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. The Court also issued a stern warning that more severe penalties would be imposed for any future breach. On the failure of Atty. Paul Resurreccion to file a comment: The Court found Atty. Paul Resurreccion, counsel for the complainant, guilty of indirect contempt for his repeated failure to comply with the directive to file a comment on Atty. Palay's second motion for reconsideration, despite being previously fined. His act of disobeying a court order constitutes indirect contempt under the Rules of Court. Consequently, an additional fine of P5,000.00 was imposed for his disregard of the order.
Main Doctrine
The duties of a notary public are intricately related with the practice of law, and performing notarial functions constitutes the practice of law. A lawyer who notarizes a document without the personal appearance of the signatory violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, demonstrating dishonesty and unfitness to be a member of the legal profession.