Miranda v. Alvarez
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Pablito L. Miranda, Jr. filed an administrative case against respondent Atty. Jose B. Alvarez, Sr. for disbarment and perpetual disqualification as a notary public on grounds of gross negligence, grave misconduct, and violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Complainant alleged that respondent notarized documents in 2010 despite his notarial commission for San Pedro, Laguna having expired in December 2005. Complainant presented evidence of respondent's offices in San Pedro, Laguna, and documents notarized in 2010, including an Application for Business Permit and a Special Power of Attorney (SPA), which allegedly lacked valid proof of identification and bore fictitious addresses. Certifications from the RTC-San Pedro confirmed respondent's commission expired in 2005 and that no SPA notarized by respondent in 2010 was submitted to their office. Complainant also alleged respondent failed to comply with duties regarding registration of offices, active registers, filing of reports, and surrender of seal upon expiration, and that respondent authorized unlicensed persons to perform notarial acts. Procedural History: Respondent asserted he was a duly commissioned notary public in Biñan, Laguna in 2010, presenting a certification from the RTC-Biñan. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) – Commission on Bar Discipline found respondent administratively liable and recommended revocation of his commission, perpetual bar as a notary public, and a two-year suspension from the practice of law. The IBP Board of Governors adopted this with modification, reducing the suspension to one year. Upon respondent's motion for reconsideration, the IBP Board of Governors deleted the suspension penalty, considering the violation related to Notarial Law. Complainant moved for reconsideration, seeking disbarment, and pointed out respondent's prior five-month suspension from the practice of law, which had not been lifted. The IBP Board of Governors denied complainant's motion. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed whether the IBP correctly found respondent administratively liable.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Jose B. Alvarez, Sr. committed violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Whether respondent Atty. Jose B. Alvarez, Sr. committed violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Whether respondent Atty. Jose B. Alvarez, Sr. should be held liable for practicing law despite an existing suspension order.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Atty. Jose B. Alvarez, Sr. guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Accordingly, the Court suspended him from the practice of law for two (2) years, revoked his incumbent commission as a notary public, if any, and perpetually disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public. He was warned that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The Court also directed respondent to show cause within ten (10) days why he should not be held in contempt of court or further disciplined for allegedly practicing law despite his suspension order.
Ratio Decidendi
On the violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice: The Court found that respondent committed three main violations. First, he performed notarial acts without a proper commission. Specifically, he notarized documents in San Pedro, Laguna, in 2010, when his commission for that jurisdiction had expired in 2005. Although he had a commission from Biñan, Laguna, he conducted notarial acts in San Pedro, which was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Furthermore, he notarized an Affidavit for Death Benefit Claim in Biñan, Laguna, in April 2012, after his commission for Biñan had already expired. Second, respondent notarized a document, an Application for Business Permit, which lacked details regarding the signatory's competent evidence of identity. The Court reiterated that a notary public must verify the signatory's identity and ensure the document is their free act and deed, and that notarizing an incomplete certificate is a failure in duty. Third, respondent failed to forward to the Clerk of Court a certified copy of monthly entries and a duplicate original copy of acknowledged instruments, as required by the Notarial Rules. This failure, as per jurisprudence, is a ground for revocation of a notary public's commission. On the violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility: The Court held that respondent's transgressions of the Notarial Rules also impacted his standing as a lawyer. As a member of the Bar, he is expected to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and refrain from acts that erode public trust. By flouting the Notarial Rules on numerous occasions, respondent engaged in unlawful conduct, violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 (A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct) and Canon 7 (A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the integrated bar). The Court emphasized that notarization is invested with substantive public interest, and notaries public must observe basic requirements with utmost care to maintain public confidence. On practicing law despite suspension: The Court noted that respondent had previously been suspended from the practice of law for five months, effective January 9, 2001, and this suspension had not been lifted. The lifting of a lawyer's suspension is not automatic; it requires filing a motion with the Court, along with certifications from relevant judicial and IBP officials. Records did not show respondent complied with this process. Despite this, complainant presented evidence that respondent continued to practice law, appearing as counsel in criminal cases, issuing receipts for acceptance fees, and signing letters as counsel. Therefore, the Court directed respondent to show cause why he should not be held in contempt or further disciplined for allegedly practicing law while under suspension.
Main Doctrine
A notary public must perform notarial acts only within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court and only when their commission is valid. Failure to comply with the Rules on Notarial Practice, including proper identification of signatories and timely filing of notarial reports, constitutes gross negligence and grave misconduct, warranting revocation of commission, perpetual disqualification, and suspension from the practice of law.