Maniquiz v. Emelo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Ma. Vilma F. Maniquiz filed an administrative complaint against respondent Atty. Danilo C. Emelo for notarizing a fictitious Deed of Absolute Sale and for notarizing the document without a valid notarial commission. Maniquiz alleged that Emelo notarized a deed of sale containing a falsified signature of her sister-in-law, Mergelita Sindanom Maniquiz, as vendor, in favor of spouses Leonardo and Lucena Torres. The document lacked witness names, and the vendees did not present identification. Emelo admitted notarizing the document based on a photocopy of Mergelita's passport shown to him by Leonardo Torres, who personally appeared before him. Emelo also admitted notarizing the document without a notarial commission, explaining that his commission orders might have been destroyed by typhoon. Procedural History: The Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) recommended a two-year suspension from the practice of law. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved this recommendation with modification, suspending Atty. Danilo C. Emelo from the practice of law for two (2) years, revoking his notarial commission, and disqualifying him from being commissioned as a notary public for two (2) years. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for review of the IBP's findings and recommendations.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Danilo C. Emelo violated his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a fictitious Deed of Absolute Sale, including the absence of personal appearance of parties and lack of a valid notarial commission. Whether respondent Atty. Danilo C. Emelo's actions constituted deceit, gross misconduct, and dishonesty, warranting disciplinary action, considering the nature of the legal profession and the need to maintain public trust.
Ruling
The Supreme Court upholds the findings and recommendations of the IBP. Atty. Danilo C. Emelo is suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years, his notarial commission, if presently commissioned, is revoked, and he is perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public. He is warned that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of notarizing a fictitious Deed of Absolute Sale, the absence of personal appearance of parties, and notarizing without a notarial commission: The Court reiterated that notarization ensures the public that the document expresses the true agreement between the parties. The notary public assures the parties' identities, which requires physical presence to prevent forgery and misrepresentation. A notary public must discharge duties with accuracy and fidelity and should not be part of illegal transactions. Performing a notarial act without a valid commission violates the lawyer's oath and constitutes deliberate falsehood. Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, requiring qualified and authorized individuals. The respondent's actions violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR, prohibiting lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Canon 1 mandates obedience to laws and legal processes. The respondent's conduct was unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful, failing to uphold the law and acting with a lack of integrity. On the issue of deceit, gross misconduct, and dishonesty, the nature of the legal profession, and the need to maintain public trust: Membership in the legal profession is a privilege requiring not only legal knowledge but also good moral character. Lawyers are expected to act with honesty and integrity to maintain public faith in the legal profession. The lawyer's oath obligates them to obey the laws, do no falsehood, and conduct themselves according to their best knowledge and discretion. The Court considered previous cases with similar violations and found the IBP's recommended penalty of two years suspension, revocation of notarial commission, and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public to be in line with established jurisprudence for such grave offenses.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who notarizes a document without the parties personally appearing before him and without a valid notarial commission is guilty of deceit, gross misconduct, and dishonesty, violating his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and shall be subject to disciplinary action including suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.