Frias v. Abao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Pepito and Prescila Frias (Spouses Frias) owned a parcel of land. In early 1900s, due to their daughter's heart disease and financial difficulties, they agreed to lease their property to Rodrigo Arbiz and his wife for twenty years (January 16, 1995 to January 16, 2015) in exchange for P340,000.00. The agreement stipulated that the Spouses Frias would not have to repay the amount, the Arbiz couple would possess and enjoy the property, pay real estate taxes, and the Spouses Frias would not disturb their possession until the lease expired. The Spouses Frias entrusted the owner's duplicate copy of the title to the Arbiz couple and left for Mindanao. Their daughter died in 2000. In 2000 and 2005, Rodrigo and Maria Arbiz died, respectively. Their heirs, Jermehilda and Danilo Escutin, took possession of the property. Procedural History: After the lease expired, the Spouses Frias returned to claim their property but the Spouses Escutin refused to turn over possession, claiming the property was sold to their parents via a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 11, 1995, notarized by respondent Atty. Nelly E. Abao. The Spouses Frias denied executing this deed, asserting they were in Mindanao at the time. A Certification from the Clerk of Court of Roxas City stated that the deed of absolute sale did not exist in their records and that Atty. Abao was not commissioned as a notary public in Roxas City for 1995. The Spouses Frias filed a complaint for disciplinary action against Atty. Abao for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law. Atty. Abao admitted notarizing the deed without a commission but denied it was fictitious, maintaining the Spouses Frias personally appeared and signed before her. The Spouses Frias' ejectment case against the Spouses Escutin was dismissed. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD) found Atty. Abao liable for notarizing without a commission and for executing an untruthful judicial affidavit, recommending suspension and disqualification. The IBP-Board of Governors adopted these recommendations. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the case based on the IBP-CBD's findings and recommendations. The primary issue was whether Atty. Abao committed malpractice as a notary public and violated the Code of Professional Responsibility by notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale without a valid notarial commission and by making false statements in her judicial affidavit. The Spouses Frias sought disciplinary action against Atty. Abao.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Atty. Nelly E. Abao committed malpractice as a notary public by notarizing a Deed of Absolute Sale without a valid notarial commission. Whether respondent Atty. Nelly E. Abao violated Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by making false statements in her judicial affidavit regarding the notarization of the Deed of Absolute Sale.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found respondent Atty. Nelly E. Abao guilty of malpractice as a notary public and for violating her lawyer's oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years and permanently barred from being commissioned as a Notary Public, effective upon receipt of the Decision.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court affirmed the IBP-CBD's finding that Atty. Abao performed notarial acts on the subject deed of absolute sale without a valid notarial commission. This was established by the Certification from the Clerk of Court of Roxas City, which stated that the deed did not exist in their records and that Atty. Abao was not commissioned as a notary public in that area for the year 1995. The Court emphasized that notarization is a substantive act imbued with public interest, requiring adherence to strict requirements by authorized individuals. Performing notarial acts without a commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, specifically the Rules on Notarial Practice, and constitutes deliberate falsehood. This falls squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility against unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. The Court cited previous cases like Nunga v. Atty. Viray, Zoreta v. Atty. Simpliciano, and Judge Laquindanum v. Atty. Quintana where lawyers were disciplined for similar violations, including notarizing outside territorial jurisdiction or with expired commissions. The Court found Atty. Abao's assertion of old age and sickness unconvincing, as she was only fifty-four years old at the time of the unauthorized act. On Issue 2: The Court also found Atty. Abao liable for making false statements in her judicial affidavit. She alleged that Pepito Frias was present, that Prescila Frias was present, and that both affixed their signatures to the Deed of Absolute Sale. These assertions were contradicted by the Spouses Frias' testimony that they were in Mindanao and by the Certification from the Clerk of Court indicating the non-existence of the deed and Atty. Abao's lack of commission. By making these false statements, Atty. Abao violated Rule 10.01 of Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which mandates that a lawyer shall not misquote or misrepresent the contents of a document. Her actions demonstrated a disregard for truth and integrity, which are fundamental tenets of the legal profession. The Court noted that her misdeeds ran afoul of her duties as both a lawyer and a notary public, violating Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which require lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and to refrain from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct.
Main Doctrine
The act of notarization is invested with substantive public interest, requiring strict adherence to the basic requirements by qualified and authorized notaries public. A lawyer performing notarial acts without a valid commission violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws and engages in dishonest conduct, falling under the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Such unauthorized notarization is considered malpractice, warranting severe disciplinary action, including suspension from the practice of law and permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.