Hedocil-Menioria v. Peralta
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Loreta Hedocil-Menioria (complainant) alleged that Atty. Glenn Eric Lumbay Peralta (respondent) notarized a Partition Agreement dated November 17, 2017 (subject document), between her brothers, Melecio Hedocil and Artemio Hedocil, who had both died on April 17, 1984, and November 22, 2005, respectively, as evinced by their death certificates. Complainant, as the lone surviving direct and compulsory heir of the late spouses Gaudioso Hedocil and Romana Andojar-Hedocil, claimed that respondent performed the notarization without requiring the supposed signatories to present any competent evidence of identification, thereby violating the Rules on Notarial Practice. The subject of the agreement was a residential property, Lot No. 6916, covered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 130-2014000295. Procedural History: In defense, respondent denied any administrative liability, claiming that a similar criminal case against him for violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) was dismissed, questioning complainant's personality to file the complaint, asserting the wives of the deceased did not divulge their husbands' deaths, denying his signature on the document, and invoking the best evidence rule. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) Investigating Commissioner (IC) recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR), including his oath as a lawyer and as a notary public, and be meted with penalties of suspension from the practice of law for two years, revocation of his current notarial commission, and perpetual disqualification as a notary public. The IC rejected respondent's defenses, clarifying the evidentiary thresholds for criminal versus administrative cases and the sufficiency of a certified true copy. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the IC's Report and Recommendation. The Petition: The issue for the Court's resolution was whether respondent should be held administratively liable for the act complained of.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Glenn Eric Lumbay Peralta should be held administratively liable for violating his duties as a notary public and as a lawyer. What is the correct evidentiary threshold in administrative disciplinary cases against members of the Bar?
Ruling
The Court found respondent Atty. Glenn Eric Lumbay Peralta GUILTY of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR). The Court SUSPENDED him from the practice of law for a period of one year; REVOKED his incumbent commission as a notary public, if any; and PROHIBITED him from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years. However, considering that he had already been disbarred in Dela Cruz v. Peralta (2022), these penalties could no longer be physically imposed but should be considered in the event that he should apply for the lifting of his disbarment. He was also ORDERED to pay a FINE in the amount of PHP 40,000.00 within a period not exceeding three months from receipt of this Decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), holding that respondent clearly failed to comply with his obligations as embodied in the Lawyer's Oath and the Rules on Notarial Practice. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act; it is invested with substantive public interest, converting a private document into a public document admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the Rules on Notarial Practice explicitly mandates that a notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization and is not personally known or identified through competent evidence of identity. Respondent admitted preparing and notarizing the Partition Agreement but failed to ensure the personal presence of Melecio and Artemio Hedocil, a fact impossible given their deaths years prior to the notarization. This failure constitutes a violation of his Lawyer's Oath, Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct), and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 (prohibiting falsehood or misleading the court) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Without the personal appearance of the signatory, the notary public cannot verify the genuineness of the signature or ascertain that the document is the party's free act or deed, thus exposing the respondent to administrative liability. On Issue 2: The Court clarified that the evidentiary threshold in administrative disciplinary cases against members of the Bar is "substantial evidence," not "preponderance of evidence" as initially stated by the IBP Investigating Commissioner. Citing Reyes v. Nieva, the Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis, meaning they are neither purely civil nor purely criminal. These proceedings are an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers, primarily aimed at preserving the purity of the legal profession and ensuring the proper administration of justice, rather than inflicting punishment. Substantial evidence is defined as more than a mere scintilla but such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Guided by this standard, the Court ruled that complainant was able to establish respondent's administrative liability by substantial evidence, thereby correcting the IBP's initial understanding of the required quantum of proof.
Main Doctrine
This case reiterates the stringent requirements for notarization, emphasizing that a notary public must ensure the personal presence and proper identification of signatories. It underscores that notarization is not a mere formality but a substantive act imbued with public interest, converting private documents into public ones. Furthermore, it clarifies that the quantum of proof required in administrative disciplinary proceedings against lawyers is substantial evidence, not preponderance of evidence, highlighting the sui generis nature of such proceedings and their primary objective of preserving the purity of the legal profession.