Heck v. Santos
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Heinz R. Heck filed a verified Letter-Complaint dated March 21, 2001, praying for the disbarment of Judge Anthony E. Santos. The complainant alleged that prior to his appointment as RTC judge on April 11, 1989, respondent Judge Santos violated the Notarial Law by notarizing documents without the requisite commission between January 1980 and January 1984, and failed to forward his Notarial Register after his commission expired in December 1989. The complainant also alleged that records failed to show any entry of transmittal of notarial documents under respondent's name after December 1985, despite his commission extending until December 1989. Procedural History: The Court referred the case to Associate Justice Edgardo P. Cruz of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation. The complainant requested, and the Court granted, that the hearing be held in Cagayan de Oro City. The complainant presented evidence before retired Court of Appeals Justice Romulo S. Quimbo. Investigating Justice Cruz recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating the Notarial Law for notarizing documents without commission, tardiness in submitting notarial reports, and non-forwarding of his notarial register. He recommended suspension from the practice of law and bar from being commissioned as notary public for one year, and revocation of his present commission. The Petition: The complainant prayed for the disbarment of Judge Santos, forfeiture of his retirement benefits, prohibition from future practice of law and public service, and filing of a criminal suit. The core of the complaint was the alleged notarization of documents without a valid commission and other violations of notarial rules, committed by the respondent while he was a practicing lawyer, prior to his appointment as a judge.
Issue(s)
Whether a retired judge can be disciplined for acts committed prior to his appointment to the judiciary. Whether administrative cases against lawyers for acts committed prior to their appointment to the judiciary prescribe. Whether notarizing documents without the requisite notarial commission constitutes malpractice and a violation of the lawyer's oath. Whether the evidence presented sufficiently proves that the respondent notarized documents without the requisite commission.
Ruling
The respondent Judge Anthony E. Santos was found GUILTY of notarizing documents without the requisite notarial commission therefor. He was ORDERED to pay a fine in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether a retired judge can be disciplined for acts committed prior to his appointment to the judiciary: The Court held that a judge may be disciplined for acts committed prior to his appointment to the judiciary. The Supreme Court's disciplinary authority over members of the bar is not lost by the mere fact that a respondent has retired from the judiciary. This is consistent with the principle that the practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions, and good moral character is a continuing requirement. The Court cited jurisprudence stating that jurisdiction is retained even if the respondent ceases office during the pendency of the case, and that a contrary rule would be fraught with injustice. Furthermore, the Court noted that even the new rules recognize the disposition of charges against judges, including those filed prior to their appointment. On the issue of whether administrative cases against lawyers for acts committed prior to their appointment to the judiciary prescribe: The Court ruled that administrative cases against lawyers do not prescribe. The requirement of good moral character is a continuing one, essential to maintain good standing in the profession. Disciplinary proceedings are sui generis, aimed at preserving the purity of the legal profession and the proper administration of justice, and are not subject to prescription periods applicable to civil or criminal cases. The Court emphasized that erring members of the bench and bar cannot escape the disciplining arm of the Court, regardless of the time elapsed since the commission of the offense, to deter misconduct and protect the integrity of the practice of law and the administration of justice. On the issue of whether notarizing documents without the requisite notarial commission constitutes malpractice and a violation of the lawyer's oath: The Court affirmed that notarizing documents without the requisite commission is a serious offense. It is considered malpractice, and potentially the crime of falsification of public documents, as it involves making it appear that one is duly commissioned when not authorized. This act violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws and to do no falsehood, and falls squarely within the prohibition against unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct under the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court stressed the substantive public interest invested in notarization and the need for qualified individuals to perform this function. On the issue of whether the evidence presented sufficiently proves that the respondent notarized documents without the requisite commission: The Court found the charge supported by the evidence on record. The respondent did not adduce evidence to prove his commission as a notary public for the years 1980 to 1983, nor did he deny the accuracy of the certification from the Clerk of Court which indicated his earliest commission was on January 9, 1984. His defense that there was no proper recording of commissioned lawyers and submitted documents was deemed insufficient without supporting proof. The Investigating Justice concluded, based on the complainant's documentary evidence, that the respondent notarized documents without being commissioned during the period in question, as his earliest commission of record was January 9, 1984.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court retains jurisdiction to discipline a retired judge for acts committed prior to his appointment to the judiciary, specifically for notarizing documents without the requisite commission. Such acts constitute malpractice and a violation of the lawyer's oath, and administrative cases for these offenses do not prescribe. While the delay in filing the complaint and the respondent's retired status may mitigate the penalty, they do not divest the Court of its disciplinary authority.