Mabini v. Kintanar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Roberto P. Mabini alleged that respondent Atty. Vitto A. Kintanar committed misconduct by notarizing a document executed by his wife, Evangeline C. Kintanar. The document in question was an Affidavit of Lost Owner's Duplicate Copy of Title, notarized by respondent on April 25, 2002. Complainant averred that respondent knew he was not authorized to notarize documents executed by his wife, a relative by affinity. Respondent countered that the notarization occurred in 2002, when the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 was in effect, which did not prohibit a Notary Public from notarizing a document executed by a spouse. He also argued that the document was a mere affidavit, not a bilateral document. Procedural History: The Investigating Commissioner found respondent guilty of misconduct and recommended a six-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors modified this, imposing a six-month suspension from the practice of law, immediate revocation of his commission as Notary Public, and a two-year disqualification as Notary Public. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court on whether respondent committed misconduct by notarizing his wife's affidavit of loss in 2002.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent committed misconduct by notarizing his wife's affidavit of loss in 2002.
Ruling
The Court dismissed the Complaint against Atty. Vitto A. Kintanar for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent committed misconduct by notarizing his wife's affidavit of loss in 2002: The Court held that respondent did not commit misconduct. The notarization occurred on April 25, 2002, at which time the governing law for notarial practice was the Revised Administrative Code of 1917. This Code, unlike the later Revised Rules on Notarial Practice of 2004, did not prohibit a Notary Public from notarizing documents executed by relatives, including a spouse. The Court reiterated its pronouncements in previous cases, such as Heirs of Pedro Alilano v. Atty. Examen and Ylaya v. Atty. Gacott, which established that the Spanish Notarial Law of 1889 was repealed by the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, and that the prohibitions found in the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice were not retroactive. Therefore, since no prohibition existed under the applicable law at the time of the notarization, respondent could not be held liable for misconduct. The duties of a Notary Public are indeed impressed with public interest, but liability only attaches when there is a violation of existing law or rules.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer cannot be held liable for violation of duties as a Notary Public when the law in effect at the time of the complained act did not provide any prohibition, even if subsequent rules impose such prohibitions.