Yusay-Cordero v. Amihan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Hector and Lilia Yusay-Cordero executed a special power of attorney in 1976, authorizing Lilia's father, Quirico Yusay Sr., to sell and mortgage their land. Quirico Sr. mortgaged the property. After Hector's death in 2004, Lilia paid the loan and retrieved the title in 2015. She discovered an annotation on the title regarding a "Deed of Portion Sale" dated December 11, 2003, notarized by Atty. Juanito S. Amihan, Jr., where she was the seller represented by her father, and Quirico Y. Yusar, Jr. and Alberto Y. Yusay were the buyers. Procedural History: Lilia discovered that Atty. Amihan, Jr. did not have a notarial commission in 2003 and that the deed was not recorded with the Office of the Clerk of Court. She filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Amihan, Jr. before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for violating the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Atty. Amihan, Jr. presented rubber stamp imprints of his notarial commission details for 2003, a recommendation letter stating his commission expired on December 31, 2003, and his oath of office and appointment as notary public in 2004. The Commission on Bar Discipline found Atty. Amihan, Jr. not to be a commissioned notary public in 2003, citing the absence of a certificate of authority and notarial reports, and confirmed this with the RTC. The Commission recommended revocation of his notarial commission, disqualification for two years, and suspension from practice for two years. The IBP Board of Governors modified the penalty, imposing a one-year suspension from practice and a two-year disqualification from holding a notarial commission. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution on the administrative liability of Atty. Amihan, Jr. for notarizing a document without a valid notarial commission in 2003. The core issue was whether Atty. Amihan, Jr. possessed a valid notarial commission at the time he notarized the Deed of Portion Sale.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Juanito S. Amihan, Jr. had a valid notarial commission when he notarized the Deed of Portion Sale on December 11, 2003. Whether Atty. Juanito S. Amihan, Jr. violated the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a document without a valid commission.
Ruling
The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the IBP with modification as to the penalty. The Court ruled that Atty. Juanito S. Amihan, Jr. did not have a valid notarial commission in 2003 when he notarized the Deed of Portion Sale. Consequently, he was found guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His notarial commission was immediately revoked, he was disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for one year, and he was suspended from the practice of law for one year. He was also sternly warned against repetition of similar acts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Atty. Amihan, Jr.'s notarial commission in 2003: The Court found that it was undisputed that Atty. Amihan, Jr. notarized the deed in 2003. However, the certification from the office of the clerk of court unequivocally stated that Atty. Amihan, Jr. was not a commissioned notary public in that year, and no copy of the deed was filed. This finding was further confirmed by the investigating commissioner's inquiry with the RTC. In contrast, Atty. Amihan, Jr.'s evidence, consisting of rubber stamp imprints and a recommendation letter, did not sufficiently establish his commission. The rubber stamps lacked crucial information like a notarial commission number, and the recommendation letter was contradicted by the clerk of court's certification. The prevailing law required the oath of office and commission of a notary public to be filed and recorded with the Office of the Clerk of Court, and a certification from the clerk of court is sufficient proof of the absence of such commission. Atty. Amihan, Jr. also failed to submit a copy of his certificate of authority for 2003 and his notarial reports and register for that year. The Court held that preponderant evidence, which means evidence of greater weight, was necessary, and Lilia successfully proved that Atty. Amihan, Jr. lacked a commission. On the issue of violation of the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01 of the CPR: The Court held that notarization is a critical function that ensures the authenticity and reliability of documents, converting private documents into public ones. Courts and the public must be able to rely on acknowledgments executed by notaries public. A lawyer who notarizes a document without the required commission engages in deliberate falsehood and violates the Lawyer's Oath to obey the laws, specifically the Notarial Law. This conduct falls squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." The Court cited Nunga v. Atty. Viray to support this principle, emphasizing that performing notarial acts without a commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath and constitutes deliberate falsehood. Therefore, Atty. Amihan, Jr.'s act of notarizing the deed without a valid commission constituted a violation of these professional obligations.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who notarizes a document without a valid notarial commission commits deliberate falsehood and violates the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The certification from the Clerk of Court that a lawyer has no notarial commission is sufficient proof of this fact, and the lawyer bears the burden of proving their commission status.