Coquia v. Laforteza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Flordeliza E. Coquia filed a Petition for Disbarment against respondent Atty. Emmanuel E. Laforteza, a former Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 68, Lingayen, Pangasinan. Coquia alleged that Atty. Laforteza conspired with Clemente Solis to falsify two documents: an Agreement between Clemente Solis and Flordeliza Coquia, and a Payment Agreement executed by Flordeliza Coquia. She claimed these documents were notarized by Atty. Laforteza on January 7, 2009, to falsely show she swore to them, when in fact she was attending classes at Centro Escolar University in Manila on that date. Coquia further asserted that Atty. Laforteza, as Clerk of Court, was not authorized to administer oaths on documents unrelated to his official duties. Procedural History: The complaint was referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant for appropriate action. Atty. Laforteza was required to comment and denied the allegations, stating he performed the subscription in good faith, relying on the representations of fellow court employee Luzviminda Solis and others present, who claimed to be the parties to the documents. He admitted hesitating and suggesting they seek a regular notary public but eventually accommodated their request. Clemente and Luzviminda Solis also submitted a Joint-Affidavit denying conspiracy with Atty. Laforteza and asserting that Coquia's signature was indeed hers. The case was then referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation. During the mandatory conference, Atty. Laforteza admitted that he did not personally know Coquia or Clemente, relied on others for their identities, and that Coquia did not sign in his presence. The IBP-Commission on Bar Discipline (CBD) recommended dismissal for lack of evidence, but the IBP-Board of Governors reversed this, reprimanding Atty. Laforteza. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case, concurring with the IBP-Board of Governors' findings but disagreeing on the penalty. The Court noted that the quantum of proof required is preponderant evidence and that bare allegations cannot prevail over the presumption of regularity. The Court found that Coquia failed to present clear and preponderant evidence of Atty. Laforteza's direct participation or connivance in the falsification. However, the Court found that Atty. Laforteza committed unauthorized notarial acts and violated the Notarial Law by notarizing documents unrelated to his official functions and by failing to properly verify the identities of the signatories.
Issue(s)
Whether Atty. Laforteza committed unauthorized notarial acts by notarizing documents unrelated to his official functions as Clerk of Court. Whether Atty. Laforteza violated the Notarial Law by failing to properly identify the signatories and verify their signatures on the subject documents. Whether Atty. Laforteza conspired with Clemente Solis to falsify the subject documents.
Ruling
The Supreme Court concurred with the IBP-Board of Governors' findings that Atty. Laforteza committed unauthorized notarial acts and violated the Notarial Law. However, the Court found insufficient evidence to prove conspiracy in the falsification of the documents. The Court revoked Atty. Laforteza's notarial commission, if any, and disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for one year. He was also sternly warned that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The Court noted that it could no longer acquire administrative jurisdiction over Atty. Laforteza for the purpose of imposing disciplinary sanctions as a court employee since the complaint was filed after he ceased to be one.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Unauthorized Notarial Acts): The Court held that Clerks of Court, acting as notaries public ex officio, are authorized to notarize documents or administer oaths only when the matter is related to the exercise of their official functions. The subject documents, an Agreement and a Payment Agreement between private parties, were unrelated to Atty. Laforteza's official duties as Clerk of Court of RTC, Branch 68, Lingayen, Pangasinan, especially since the civil case from which they originated was not even raffled in his branch. The Court reiterated the ruling in Borre v. Moya and Exec. Judge Astorga v. Solas, stating that notarization of documents unrelated to official functions is beyond the scope of their authority as notaries public ex officio, constituting an unauthorized notarial act and an abuse of authority. The Court emphasized that the exceptions allowing ex officio notaries to perform acts for documents unrelated to their functions require specific certifications and that government fees must be remitted, none of which were present in this case. On Issue 2 (Violation of Notarial Law): The Court found that Atty. Laforteza violated the Notarial Law. He admitted to notarizing pre-signed documents and failing to personally verify the identities of all parties, relying instead on the assurances of fellow court employees. The Court stressed that the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice clearly requires the personal appearance of the affiant before the notary public and identification through competent evidence of identity. Atty. Laforteza's failure to ascertain the identities of the parties, as evidenced by the lack of pertinent identification details in the acknowledgment portion and his admission of not personally knowing the signatories, demonstrated a failure to exercise the required due diligence. The Court underscored that notarization is not an empty routine but a public function that requires utmost care to maintain public confidence in the authenticity and reliability of documents. On Issue 3 (Conspiracy to Falsify): The Court found that complainant Coquia failed to present clear and preponderant evidence to establish that Atty. Laforteza had direct and instrumental participation or was in connivance with the Solis couple in the preparation of the subject documents. While it might be assumed that Atty. Laforteza had a hand in the preparation, the Court stated it could not give evidentiary weight to such a supposition in the absence of supporting evidence. The Court reiterated that it does not give credence to charges based on mere suspicion and speculation, and thus, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions, in the absence of cogent proof, must prevail regarding the falsification aspect.
Main Doctrine
The authority of a Clerk of Court acting as a notary public ex officio is strictly limited to notarizing documents or administering oaths in matters directly related to their official functions. Notarizing private documents that have no connection to their official duties is considered an unauthorized notarial act and an abuse of authority. Moreover, a notary public must strictly comply with the requirements of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, including the personal appearance and competent identification of the affiants, to ensure the authenticity and reliability of the notarized document.