Lim v. Tabiliran
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Atty. Bryan S. Lim and Nestor R. Wong filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against respondent Atty. Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr., charging him with violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and immorality. Nestor Wong was appointed agent by his sisters to sell their properties. Nestor appointed Raquel Go Esturco as sub-agent, who found a buyer for Virginia Wong's land. Nestor signed a Deed of Sale prepared and notarized by respondent on January 3, 2012. Subsequently, Nestor signed other documents presented by Esturco, believing them to be mere copies. Nestor received P50,000.00 as purchase price. Later, Nestor learned that Esturco had presented several deeds of sale, some in favor of Esturco and respondent's son, Venus Baybayan Tabiliran, dated between 2011 and 2012. Atty. Lim filed a counter-complaint against respondent, alleging that respondent notarized documents with an expired commission, failed to timely file certified true copies of documents, falsified a deed of sale, and notarized instruments not in the presence of the parties. Procedural History: The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The Investigating Commissioner found respondent administratively liable for violating the Notarial Rules, the Code, and the Lawyer's Oath, recommending a two-year suspension. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the report but modified the penalty to disbarment. The Court referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Petition: The essential issue before the Court is whether respondent should be administratively sanctioned.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr. should be administratively sanctioned for the acts complained of. Whether respondent violated the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing documents with an expired commission. Whether respondent failed to comply with his obligations under the Notarial Rules regarding the submission of documents and the assignment of notarial details. Whether respondent committed immorality.
Ruling
The Court concurs with and affirms the findings of the IBP Board of Governors with modification as to the penalty. Respondent Atty. Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr. is found administratively liable for violating the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court imposes the penalties of permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public and suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether respondent Atty. Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr. should be administratively sanctioned for the acts complained of: Considering the circumstances and the extent of respondent's willful malfeasance, the Court found that the penalties of permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public and suspension from the practice of law for two (2) years were proper, modifying the IBP's recommendation of disbarment. The Court reiterated that membership in the legal profession is a privilege burdened with conditions, and any transgression of duty diminishes the lawyer's reputation and corrodes public faith in the legal profession. On whether respondent violated the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing documents with an expired commission: The Court affirmed the findings that respondent notarized documents with an expired commission. Specifically, an Authorization dated March 18, 2011, and a Confirmation of Deed of Sale of Land in June 2013 were notarized when respondent's commission was not valid. The Court noted that the Confirmation of Deed of Sale was submitted to the Registry of Deeds on June 19, 2013, indicating it was notarized on or before that date, during which time respondent had no valid notarial commission. Performing notarial acts without a valid commission violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws and constitutes unlawful, dishonest, and deceitful conduct under Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. This act undermines the public's confidence in the integrity of notarized documents, which are invested with substantive public interest. On whether respondent failed to comply with his obligations under the Notarial Rules regarding the submission of documents and the assignment of notarial details: The Court found that respondent failed to submit certified true copies of documents notarized from August 28, 2013, to December 31, 2014, to the Clerk of Court, contrary to Section 2(3), Rule VI of the Notarial Rules. Furthermore, when respondent eventually submitted his notarial documents, it was discovered that he assigned the same notarial details to different documents, violating Section 2(h), Rule VI. This failure to strictly comply with the rules on notarial practice constitutes gross negligence and seriously undermines the dependability and efficacy of notarized documents. On whether respondent committed immorality: The Court agreed with the IBP's finding that there was insufficient evidence to prove the charge of immorality. The burden of proof rests on the complainants, and the evidence presented was not clear, convincing, and satisfactory to warrant disciplinary action on this ground.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who notarizes documents with an expired commission violates the Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, constituting gross negligence and warranting disciplinary action, including suspension or disbarment.