Villaflores-Puza v. Arellano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Arlene O. Villaflores-Puza was the defendant in a case for declaration of nullity of marriage filed by her husband, Ernesto Puza. Ernesto was represented by Atty. Rolando B. Arellano as his counsel. On July 21, 2005, Atty. Arellano filed a formal offer of evidence on behalf of his client, which included several affidavits of witnesses that he himself had notarized. These affidavits indicated that Atty. Arellano was issued a notarial commission in Mandaluyong City. Procedural History: Upon inquiry, Villaflores-Puza discovered that Atty. Arellano was never issued a notarial commission in Mandaluyong City. She obtained a Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City attesting that he was not a commissioned notary public in said city from January 1998 until August 2005. She subsequently filed an administrative complaint with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). The IBP Investigating Commissioner recommended a five-year suspension, noting Atty. Arellano's failure to answer the complaint or attend hearings. The IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) modified the recommendation, reducing the penalty to a three-year suspension. The Petition: The case was transmitted to the Supreme Court for mandatory review. The primary issue was whether Atty. Arellano's act of notarizing documents without a commission and his failure to participate in the disciplinary proceedings warranted administrative sanctions. The complainant argued that such acts constituted gross misconduct and a violation of the rules on notarial practice.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Rolando B. Arellano is administratively liable for notarizing documents without a valid notarial commission and for failing to comply with the orders of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).
Ruling
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Rolando B. Arellano is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for three (3) years and PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a Notary Public. This order is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Administrative Liability: The Court held that Atty. Arellano is liable for gross misconduct. First, the Court emphasized that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routine act, but is invested with substantive public interest as it converts private documents into public ones. Under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, only those commissioned by a court may perform notarial acts within that court's territorial jurisdiction. Here, evidence from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City proved that Atty. Arellano was never commissioned as a notary public in that city from 1998 to 2005. Second, the Court found that Atty. Arellano's failure to answer the complaint or attend Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) hearings constituted a 'flouting resistance' to lawful orders. As a member of the Bar, he was bound to comply with the directives of the IBP, which acts as the Court's investigator. Consequently, his deliberate unauthorized notarization and his refusal to cooperate with the disciplinary process warranted a three-year suspension and permanent disqualification from being a notary public.
Main Doctrine
Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routine act but is invested with substantive public interest. It converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A lawyer who notarizes documents without a valid notarial commission is remiss in his professional duties and responsibilities, as only those commissioned may perform such acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the granting court. Furthermore, a lawyer's failure to comply with the directives of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) during disciplinary proceedings constitutes a flouting resistance to lawful orders that warrants heavier penalties. Such conduct renders a lawyer unfit to perform the sacred duties of a notary public, justifying permanent disqualification.