Cansino v. Sederiosa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Teodoro and Emilio Cansino, Jr. filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Victor D. Sederiosa, a friend of their brother Paulino. They alleged that the respondent notarized several spurious documents, including an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate and Deeds of Sale, involving their deceased parents and sister. These documents were purportedly executed by individuals who were either already deceased at the time of notarization or who never personally appeared before the respondent. Procedural History: The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner found the respondent liable and recommended a one-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors (BOG) modified this, recommending a one-year suspension from law practice, revocation of his notarial commission, and a two-year disqualification from being commissioned. On December 7, 2015, the Supreme Court adopted these recommendations. The Petition: Complainant Emilio, Jr. subsequently filed a Manifestation and Motion informing the Court that despite the suspension order, Atty. Sederiosa continued to practice law and remained a commissioned notary public in Davao City for the years 2016-2017. The respondent filed a Manifestation claiming he never officially received the December 7, 2015 Resolution and only learned of it in September 2016. He argued that his timely Motion for Reconsideration of the IBP's initial resolution stayed the execution of the penalty.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Sederiosa is administratively liable for engaging in the practice of law during his suspension, including performing notarial acts despite his suspension. Whether the respondent is liable for performing notarial acts despite the revocation of his commission and his disqualification.
Ruling
Respondent Atty. Victor D. Sederiosa is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for TWO (2) YEARS, on top of the ONE (1) YEAR SUSPENSION previously imposed. His current notarial commission, if any, is REVOKED, and he is PERMANENTLY DISQUALIFIED from acting as a notary public.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that Atty. Sederiosa willfully engaged in the practice of law during his suspension. Under Philippine jurisprudence, the practice of law is not limited to litigation but includes any activity requiring legal knowledge, training, and experience. A lawyer under suspension is not a member of the Bar in good standing, which is a mandatory requirement for eligibility as a notary public under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Evidence showed that Atty. Sederiosa remained a commissioned notary and notarized an Affidavit of Loss in August 2016, months after the suspension order was served. The Court rejected his claim of non-receipt, noting that the Registry Return Receipt showed delivery to his office on January 29, 2016. Consequently, his continued practice constituted a breach of the Lawyer's Oath and multiple provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), specifically Canon 9 regarding unauthorized practice. On Issue 2: The respondent's act of notarizing documents despite the revocation of his commission and his disqualification was deemed indisputably contemptuous. The Court emphasized that the power to regulate the practice of law and the notarial profession resides exclusively with the High Court. By ignoring the revocation and disqualification, Atty. Sederiosa committed gross misconduct and deceit, violating Rule 1.01 and Canon 7 of the CPR. The Court noted that such defiance makes a mockery of the judiciary's disciplinary power and misleads the public into believing court orders are toothless. While disbarment was considered, the Court opted for a two-year additional suspension and permanent notarial disqualification, citing that disbarment is a last resort. This penalty serves as a stern warning against the willful disobedience of lawful orders from a superior court as provided under Section 27, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
Main Doctrine
The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, primarily the requirement that a lawyer remains a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing. A lawyer under suspension is legally prohibited from performing any act that requires the application of legal knowledge, training, or experience, which explicitly includes the performance of notarial acts. Engaging in such activities during a period of suspension constitutes willful disobedience of the Supreme Court's lawful orders and gross misconduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility. This breach not only undermines the Court's disciplinary authority but also erodes public confidence in the judicial system by treating court orders as mere suggestions.