Japitana v. Parado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Maria Fatima Japitana accused respondent Atty. Sylvester C. Parado of performing notarial acts without authority, knowingly notarizing forged documents, and notarizing documents without requiring sufficient identification. Specifically, Atty. Parado notarized a Real Estate Mortgage and an Affidavit of Conformity on June 22, 2006, involving a parcel of land where the family home of the Japitanas was situated. The complainant alleged that the signatures on these documents were forgeries, that Atty. Parado forged the signatures of witnesses, and that Atty. Parado lacked a notarial commission in 2006. She also claimed one of the signatories, Theresa, was schizophrenic. Procedural History: The complaint was filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP). Atty. Parado failed to appear during the mandatory conference and did not submit a position paper. The Investigating Commissioner found Atty. Parado dishonest for claiming to have a notarial commission until 2008 when a certification from the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu stated he had no commission in 2006. The IBP-Board of Governors (IBP-BOG) recommended revoking his notarial commission, disqualifying him for two years, and suspending him for six months. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for review of the IBP-BOG's resolution. The Court considered the findings that Atty. Parado lacked a notarial commission in 2006 and failed to refute the certification. The Court also noted that even if he had a commission, he failed to observe the Rules on Notarial Practice by accepting Residence Certificates or Community Tax Certificates (CTCs) as competent evidence of identity, which are insufficient under the rules.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Sylvester C. Parado committed misconduct by performing notarial acts without a valid notarial commission. Whether respondent Atty. Sylvester C. Parado committed misconduct by failing to require competent evidence of identity from the signatories of the documents he notarized. Whether the penalty recommended by the IBP-BOG is appropriate.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Atty. Parado liable for performing notarial acts without a valid commission and for failing to require competent evidence of identity. The Court modified the penalty imposed by the IBP-BOG, suspending Atty. Parado from the practice of law for two (2) years and permanently disqualifying him from being commissioned as a Notary Public. The decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether respondent Atty. Sylvester C. Parado committed misconduct by performing notarial acts without a valid notarial commission: The Court held that Atty. Parado committed misconduct. It was established by a certification from the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Cebu that Atty. Parado had no existing notarial commission when he notarized the documents in question in 2006. He failed to refute this evidence by not appearing during the mandatory conference or filing a position paper. Performing notarial acts without a commission is a violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice and constitutes a breach of his professional duties and responsibilities as a lawyer and notary public. The Court emphasized that only persons commissioned as notaries public may perform notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court, and acting without such authority is a violation of his oath and Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. On Whether respondent Atty. Sylvester C. Parado committed misconduct by failing to require competent evidence of identity from the signatories of the documents he notarized: The Court found that Atty. Parado also committed misconduct in this regard. Even if he had a valid notarial commission, he failed to faithfully observe the Rules on Notarial Practice. He notarized the Real Estate Mortgage and Affidavit of Conformity based on the signatories presenting only their Residence Certificate or Community Tax Certificate (CTC). The Court clarified that under Section 2(b), Rule IV and Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a competent evidence of identity requires a current identification document issued by an official agency bearing a photograph and signature, or the oath of credible witnesses. CTCs are not considered competent evidence of identity as defined by the Rules. Reliance on CTCs alone is a punishable indiscretion by a notary public, as it undermines the integrity of the notarization process. On Whether the penalty recommended by the IBP-BOG is appropriate: The Court agreed with the IBP-BOG's finding of misconduct but modified the penalty. While the IBP-BOG recommended a six-month suspension and two-year disqualification, the Court found that Atty. Parado's actions warranted a more severe penalty. Considering the gravity of performing notarial acts without a commission and the failure to require proper identification, the Court, citing In re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice, suspended Atty. Parado from the practice of law for two (2) years and permanently disqualified him from being commissioned as a Notary Public. This increased penalty aims to underscore the importance of the duties and responsibilities of a notary public and to protect the public interest.
Main Doctrine
A lawyer who performs notarial acts without a valid notarial commission is remiss in their professional duties and responsibilities. The act of notarization is invested with substantive public interest, and notaries public must observe utmost care in performing their duties, including verifying the identity of signatories through competent evidence as defined by the Rules on Notarial Practice. Failure to comply with these requirements constitutes a violation of the lawyer's oath and the Canons of Professional Responsibility.