Torio v. Siapno
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case involves allegations of violations of the Rules on Notarial Practice. Specifically, Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. was accused by several commissioned notaries public of performing notarial acts in Lingayen, Natividad, and Dagupan City without a valid notarial commission. Evidence presented included photographs of his office and documents he notarized, such as an Addendum to Loan and Mortgage Agreement, a Deed of Absolute Sale, a Joint Affidavit, and an Acknowledgement of Debt, all purportedly notarized outside his authorized jurisdiction or with an expired commission. Furthermore, it was alleged that Atty. Siapno delegated his notarial authority to his secretaries. 2. Procedural History: The initial complaints were filed with the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court in Lingayen, Pangasinan, and subsequently forwarded to the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC). The Supreme Court, through a Resolution dated June 9, 2009, directed the Executive Judge of RTC-Lingayen to conduct a formal investigation into the complaint against Atty. Siapno. The Executive Judge's report found that Atty. Siapno had indeed performed notarial functions without a valid commission and recommended a fine. The Supreme Court reviewed this report and found the recommended penalty insufficient. 3. The Petition: While not a petition for review in the traditional sense, this matter reached the Supreme Court via administrative complaints filed with the Office of the Bar Confidant. The core issue presented to the Court was whether Atty. Siapno violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing documents outside his territorial jurisdiction and/or with an expired commission. The Court, acting on the findings of the Executive Judge, determined that Atty. Siapno's actions constituted a violation of the notarial rules and imposed a more severe penalty than recommended, suspending him from the practice of law for two years and permanently barring him from being commissioned as a notary public.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing documents without a valid commission and outside his territorial jurisdiction. What penalty should be imposed on Atty. Siapno for the violations found. Whether the complaints against Atty. Pedro L. Santos and Atty. Evelyn should be investigated.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. guilty of violating the Rules on Notarial Practice. He was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years and permanently barred from being commissioned as a Notary Public. The complaints against Atty. Pedro L. Santos and a certain Atty. Evelyn were ordered to be re-docketed as separate administrative cases, and the Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila was directed to conduct a formal investigation.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of Atty. Siapno's violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice: The Court affirmed the findings that Atty. Siapno performed notarial acts in Lingayen, Natividad, and Dagupan City with an expired notarial commission and outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly states that a notary public may perform acts only within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court and for the period specified in the commission. Atty. Siapno's commission had expired, and he was not commissioned in the places where he performed the notarial acts. The Court emphasized that notarization is not a mere formality but an act invested with substantive public interest, requiring qualified and authorized individuals. On the penalty to be imposed on Atty. Siapno: The Court found the recommended penalty of a P50,000.00 fine insufficient given the proven violations. By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission, Atty. Siapno violated his oath to obey the laws, particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice, and Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Citing precedents like Nunga v. Viray, Zoreta v. Simpliciano, and Laquindanum v. Quintana, where lawyers were suspended for similar offenses, the Court imposed a more severe penalty. Atty. Siapno was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years and permanently barred from being commissioned as a Notary Public, reflecting the gravity of his misconduct and the need to protect the integrity of the notarial system. On the complaints against Atty. Santos and Atty. Evelyn: The Court noted that the Executive Judge of RTC-Manila could not conduct the investigation as ordered due to his previous position. Therefore, the Court ordered the Clerk of Court to re-docket these complaints as separate administrative cases. The incumbent Executive Judge of RTC-Manila was directed to conduct a formal investigation within sixty (60) days from receipt of the decision and submit a report and recommendation, ensuring that these allegations are properly addressed.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that performing notarial acts without a valid commission or outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court constitutes a violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice. Such actions are also considered breaches of the lawyer's oath and Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandate lawyers to obey laws and uphold the integrity of the legal profession. Consequently, erring lawyers face disciplinary sanctions, including suspension from the practice of law and permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.