Manzano v. Rivera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On August 19, 2014, Lupo G. Tan, Rema Tan-Manzano, and Sonia G. Tan, represented by Atty. Antonio B. Manzano, filed a complaint for action publiciana against Pedro Pando, Rene Bloza, Arcelie Bayaca, and Marlon Urata before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33 of Ballesteros, Cagayan. The Sheriff reported that he failed to personally serve summons on Bayaca, who was abroad, and Urata, who was in Manila. On October 14, 2014, the defendants, through Atty. Carlos P. Rivera, filed an Answer that bore the signatures of all four defendants and was notarized by Atty. Rivera in Tuguegarao City. Procedural History: Atty. Manzano discovered that Atty. Rivera was not commissioned as a notary public in 2014 based on a Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Tuguegarao City. A criminal complaint for Falsification of Public Documents was filed, where Atty. Rivera admitted to preparing the Answer and notarizing the Verification without the presence of Bayaca and Urata, and while his notarial commission had already expired. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Rivera liable for Gross Misconduct, recommending a three-year suspension and a three-year bar from being a notary public. The IBP Board of Governors affirmed the findings but modified the penalty to perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. The Petition: The matter was elevated to the Supreme Court for final determination. Atty. Manzano maintained that Atty. Rivera committed malpractice, dishonesty, and falsification by notarizing the document without a commission and without the personal appearance of the affiants. Atty. Rivera failed to file an Answer or Position Paper and did not attend the mandatory conferences during the IBP proceedings despite receiving notices.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Rivera is administratively liable for notarizing a document without a valid notarial commission. Whether Atty. Rivera is administratively liable for notarizing a document without the personal appearance of the affiants. Whether Atty. Rivera's failure to participate in the IBP administrative proceedings constitutes a separate ground for disciplinary action.
Ruling
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Carlos P. Rivera is found GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Canon 7, and Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyer's Oath. Accordingly, he is PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIED from being commissioned as a notary public. Atty. Rivera is likewise SUSPENDED from the practice of law for a period of three (3) years and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that Atty. Rivera is indubitably liable for gross violation of the notarial rules because he was not commissioned as a notary public at the time he notarized the Answer in 2014. Under Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, only a person commissioned as a notary public may perform notarial acts. The Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City confirmed that he lacked such commission. This act constitutes a blatant disregard of the Lawyer's Oath to obey the laws and do no falsehood. Furthermore, it violates Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), which prohibits lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. On Issue 2: The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest, requiring the personal appearance of affiants to ensure the document's authenticity. Atty. Rivera admitted in his Counter-Affidavit that Bayaca and Urata did not personally appear before him, as they were allegedly to sign the document later. This failure to require personal appearance undermines the integrity of the notarial process and converts a private document into a public one based on a falsehood. By making it appear that the affiants were present, Atty. Rivera committed a deceitful act that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. Such conduct violates Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the CPR, which mandate lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession at all times. On Issue 3: The Court found that Atty. Rivera's conduct during the administrative proceedings manifested a blatant disregard for his oath to obey legal orders of duly constituted authorities. He failed to file an Answer or a Position Paper despite being directed to do so by the IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline. He also ignored scheduled mandatory conferences without any justifiable reason, despite receipt of notices. As an officer of the Court, he was expected to comply with the directives of the IBP, which is designated to investigate complaints against erring lawyers. His deliberate defiance of these orders serves as an aggravating factor in determining his administrative liability and shows a lack of respect for the legal system.
Main Doctrine
Notarization is not a mere empty, meaningless, routinary act; it is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. A lawyer who notarizes a document without a valid notarial commission or without the personal appearance of the affiants violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such conduct constitutes gross misconduct and warrants severe administrative penalties, including suspension from the practice of law and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.