Uy v. Saño
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Jessica C. Uy filed a disbarment case against respondent Atty. Emmanuel P. Saño for allegedly notarizing several documents despite the expiration of his commission. Respondent acted as counsel for Pablo Burgos, an intervenor in a foreclosure case, and notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale on December 7, 2001. Procedural History: A letter from the Clerk of Court VI confirmed that respondent had no notarial commission for the years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. Respondent admitted to performing notarial work during this period, explaining he applied for renewal through a representative who assured him of approval, but later discovered he was not commissioned. The case was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. The IBP Commissioner recommended a six-month suspension. The IBP Board of Governors modified this, recommending a one-year suspension, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment for two years. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution on the appropriate disciplinary action against respondent Atty. Emmanuel P. Saño for notarizing documents without a valid commission.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Emmanuel P. Saño is guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct for notarizing documents without a valid notarial commission. What is the appropriate penalty for such misconduct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Emmanuel P. Saño guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct. He was suspended from the practice of law for a period of six (6) months. His present notarial commission, if any, was revoked, and he was disqualified from reappointment as a notary public for a period of two (2) years. He was also warned that any similar act in the future would be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Atty. Emmanuel P. Saño is guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct for notarizing documents without a valid notarial commission: The Court held that respondent is guilty of malpractice and gross misconduct. The respondent admitted to notarizing documents despite not having a valid commission for the years 2000-2002. His explanation that he relied on an office aide's representation that his commission was renewed was found insufficient, as he failed to exercise due diligence in verifying the status of his commission. The Court emphasized that notarization is a substantive act invested with public interest, and only qualified individuals may perform it. The lawyer's failure to ensure he had a valid commission constitutes a disregard of the requirements and a violation of his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, specifically Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7. On what is the appropriate penalty for such misconduct: The Court, considering the circumstances and jurisprudence, found that a six-month suspension from the practice of law is adequate. While the IBP Board of Governors recommended a harsher penalty, the Court sustained the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation. The Court noted that only one document was presented by the complainant, but acknowledged the possibility of other unauthorized notarizations during the two-year period. The Court cited Buensuceso v. Barrera where a similar situation led to a one-year suspension, but distinguished the present case by the shorter period of unauthorized notarization. The Court reiterated that the purpose of suspension is to protect the public and the administration of justice, not to punish the erring lawyer.
Main Doctrine
The act of notarizing documents without a valid notarial commission constitutes malpractice and gross misconduct. Lawyers are bound by their oath to obey the laws, including the Notarial Law, and must not engage in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. The integrity and dignity of the legal profession, as mandated by Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, are compromised when a lawyer performs notarial acts without proper authorization, making it imperative for the Court to impose disciplinary sanctions to protect the public and the administration of justice.