Santillan v. Solilapsi
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Executive Judge Adelbert S. Santillan (Judge Santillan) received a request for a Certificate of Notarial Act concerning documents notarized by Atty. Nepthali P. Solilapsi (Atty. Solilapsi). Judge Santillan discovered that Atty. Solilapsi had notarized these documents in March 2019, despite his notarial commission having expired in December 2018. Procedural History: Judge Santillan issued a Memorandum directing Atty. Solilapsi to explain. Atty. Solilapsi claimed the documents were notarized by his law office staff in his absence and without his knowledge or permission. Judge Santillan reported the incident to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), recommending disciplinary action. The OCA referred the case back to Judge Santillan for investigation. During the investigation, Judge Santillan found that Atty. Solilapsi had notarized over 300 documents after his commission expired, leading him to disbelieve Atty. Solilapsi's excuse. Judge Santillan recommended a two-year disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. The Supreme Court treated the report as a complaint and required Atty. Solilapsi to comment, which he failed to do. The Court proceeded to decide the case on its merits. The Petition: The case involves the administrative liability of Atty. Solilapsi for notarizing over 300 legal documents with an expired notarial commission.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Solilapsi should be held administratively liable for having notarized more than 300 legal documents despite the expiration of his notarial commission.
Ruling
The Court found Atty. Nepthali P. Solilapsi guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. He is suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years, his incumbent notarial commission is revoked, and he is permanently disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public. He is also given a stern warning against future violations.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether Atty. Solilapsi should be held administratively liable for having notarized more than 300 legal documents despite the expiration of his notarial commission: The Court affirmed the findings of Judge Santillan, holding Atty. Solilapsi administratively liable. The Court reiterated that notarization is a substantive act invested with public interest, and only qualified and authorized individuals may perform it. Without a requisite notarial commission, a lawyer is proscribed from performing any notarial acts. The Court found Atty. Solilapsi's claim that his office staff notarized the documents in his absence and without his knowledge or permission to be an unacceptable excuse. It is the bounden duty of a notary public to ensure that only authorized individuals perform notarial acts, and a lawyer cannot evade responsibility by feigning ignorance or passing the blame to staff. The Court deemed it incredible that Atty. Solilapsi was unaware of over 300 notarizations performed in his name and office, as it contradicts natural human experience. Citing Nunga v. Atty. Viray, the Court stated that a lawyer notarizing documents without authorization violates the Notarial Rules, the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Solilapsi's actions violated Section 11, Rule III of the Notarial Rules, the Lawyer's Oath, and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the CPR. The Court noted that erring lawyers have been subjected to penalties ranging from suspension to permanent disqualification, depending on the gravity of the offense. Given the notarization of over 300 documents with an expired commission, the Court imposed a two-year suspension from the practice of law and permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who notarizes documents with an expired notarial commission is administratively liable for violating the Notarial Rules, the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The lawyer cannot escape liability by claiming ignorance or attributing the act to office staff, as it is their bounden duty to ensure proper authorization for notarial acts.