Almazan, Sr. vs. Suerte-Felipe

A notary public who performs notarial acts outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court commits malpractice and falsification, warranting disciplinary action for violation of the Notarial Law, the lawyer's oath, and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Complainant Felipe B. Almazan, Sr. and respondent Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe were opposing counsel in Civil Case No. 03-849-MK, entitled "Esperanza Nieva Dela Cruz vs. Brita T. Llantada," pending before the RTC of Marikina City. Respondent, formerly with the Public Attorney's Office, was commissioned as a notary public for the City of Pasig and the municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the years 1998–1999 under Appointment No. 98. The notarial commissioning court for those areas was the RTC of Pasig City, whose territorial jurisdiction did not extend to Marikina City. The administrative complaint arose from respondent's notarization of a document attached to the pleadings in that civil case.

In a Complaint dated April 27, 2006, complainant Felipe B. Almazan, Sr. charged respondent Atty. Marcelo B. Suerte-Felipe, formerly of the Public Attorney's Office, with malpractice and gross negligence in the performance of his duty as a notary public and/or lawyer. The complaint alleged that respondent, despite not having been registered as a notary public for the City of Marikina, notarized the acknowledgment of a document entitled "Extra judicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Juliana P. Vda. De Nieva" dated "25th day of 1999," in which the acknowledgment stated that respondent was a "notary public for and in the City of Marikina." The subject document was among the attachments to the Amended Complaint dated August 14, 2003 filed in Civil Case No. 03-849-MK before the RTC of Marikina City, where complainant and respondent appeared as opposing counsel.

To substantiate his claim, complainant attached a Certification dated May 26, 2005 issued by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Marikina City, certifying that per the court's record, respondent was not a commissioned notary public for the City of Marikina from March 30, 1994 to the date of issuance. The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated July 5, 2006, required respondent to file a Comment, which he submitted on February 13, 2007 after proper service. In his Comment, respondent admitted that he notarized the acknowledgment of the subject document but denied that he was not commissioned as a notary public at that time. He attached a Certification dated August 23, 2006 from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Pasig City, certifying his appointment as notary public for the City of Pasig and in the Municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the years 1998–1999 under Appointment No. 98. Respondent also incorporated his own administrative complaint against complainant for malpractice and harassment of a fellow lawyer.

Complainant filed a Reply dated April 26, 2007, asserting his legitimate right to file the administrative complaint and drawing attention to the fact that the subject document was incompletely dated and yet notarized by respondent. The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated July 11, 2007, referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report, and recommendation. Both parties appeared during the mandatory conference held on April 30, 2008. The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that respondent could not notarize the subject document's acknowledgment in Marikina City, as it was outside the territorial limits of his commission, and that the acknowledgment itself categorically stated he was a notary public for and in the City of Marikina, Province of Rizal, which he was not.

• Unauthorized Notarization: Complainant argued that respondent notarized the acknowledgment of the subject document despite not being registered as a notary public for the City of Marikina, as certified by the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Marikina City.
• Incomplete Dating of Document: Complainant drew attention to the fact that the subject document was incompletely dated — bearing only "25th day of 1999" without specifying the month — and yet was notarized by respondent.
• Right to File Complaint: Complainant asserted that filing the administrative complaint was a legitimate exercise of his right to hold respondent accountable for unlawful notarization, and was not an act of harassment as respondent claimed.

• Valid Notarial Commission: Respondent admitted notarizing the subject document but denied that he lacked a notarial commission at the time, presenting a Certification from the RTC of Pasig City showing his appointment as notary public for Pasig City and the municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the years 1998–1999.
• Harassment Counter-Claim: Respondent incorporated his own administrative complaint against complainant, alleging that the filing of the instant administrative case constituted malpractice and harassment of a fellow lawyer.

• Administrative Liability: Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for notarizing a document outside the territorial jurisdiction of his notarial commission and for misrepresenting his commission status in the acknowledgment.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. Respondent was found guilty of malpractice as a notary public, violation of the lawyer's oath, and violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, for performing a notarial act outside the territorial jurisdiction of his commission and misrepresenting his commission status.

• Administrative Liability: The Court concurred with the IBP's findings on liability. Respondent admitted he was commissioned as notary public only for Pasig City and the municipalities of Taguig, Pateros, San Juan, and Mandaluyong for the years 1998–1999, with the commissioning court being the RTC of Pasig. He could not notarize the subject document's acknowledgment in Marikina City, as that notarial act was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a notary public may perform notarial acts only within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. This principle is echoed in Section 240 of the Notarial Law under the Revised Administrative Code of 1917, which states that no notary shall possess authority to do any notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction. By misrepresenting in the acknowledgment that he was a notary public for and in the City of Marikina when he was not, respondent committed a form of falsehood contrary to the lawyer's oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Citing Tan Tiong Bio vs. Atty. Gonzales and Nunga vs. Atty. Viray, the Court emphasized that notarization is invested with substantive public interest and is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. Considering that respondent was a first-time offender and had acknowledged his wrongdoing, the Court found that suspension for six months from the practice of law, disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for one year, and revocation of any existing notarial commission constituted a sufficient penalty.

• Territorial Jurisdiction of Notary Public — A notary public may perform notarial acts only within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Under Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two years. Under Section 240 of the Notarial Law (Revised Administrative Code of 1917), no notary shall possess authority to do any notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that respondent, commissioned through the RTC of Pasig, could not notarize documents in Marikina City.
• Notarization Outside Commission as Malpractice and Falsification — Notarizing documents outside the territorial authority granted by a notarial commission partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. It violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws (specifically the Notarial Law) and constitutes deliberate falsehood by making it appear that the notary is duly commissioned when he is not. These violations fall within Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.
• Public Interest in Notarization — Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. The requirements for the issuance of a notarial commission are treated with formality more than casual. This principle underscores the gravity of unauthorized notarization as a disciplinary offense.

• "While seemingly appearing to be a harmless incident, respondent's act of notarizing documents in a place outside of or beyond the authority granted by his notarial commission, partakes of malpractice of law and falsification." — This passage, quoting from Tan Tiong Bio vs. Atty. Gonzales, articulates the core ratio decidendi: that notarization outside one's commission is not a technicality but constitutes both malpractice and falsification.
• "Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Hence, the requirements for the issuance of a commission as notary public are treated with a formality definitely more than casual." — This defines the doctrinal basis for the strict regulation of notarial practice and explains why unauthorized notarization is treated as a serious ethical violation.
• "No notary shall possess authority to do any notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction." — This is the statutory formulation from Section 240 of the Notarial Law (Revised Administrative Code of 1917) cited as the controlling legal basis for the territorial limitation on notarial authority.

• Tan Tiong Bio vs. Atty. Gonzales, 557 Phil. 496 (2007) — Controlling precedent followed by the Court. It expounded on the consequences of notarizing documents outside the authority granted by a notarial commission, holding that such acts constitute malpractice of law and falsification, violating the lawyer's oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR.
• Nunga vs. Atty. Viray, 366 Phil. 155 (1999) — Cited through Tan Tiong Bio as instructive authority. It established that performing a notarial act without a valid commission violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws and constitutes deliberate falsehood, warranting disciplinary action.
• Agagon vs. Atty. Bustamante, 565 Phil. 581 (2007) — Cited as basis for the penalty of suspension and disqualification from notarial commission. The Court relied on this case in determining the appropriate penalty of six months' suspension.
• Peña vs. Paterno, A.C. No. 4191, June 10, 2013, 698 SCRA 1 — Cited in a footnote as reference for the Notarial Law found in the Revised Administrative Code of 1917.

• Section 11, Rule III, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) — Provides that a person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two years. Applied to hold that respondent, whose commissioning court was the RTC of Pasig, could not perform notarial acts in Marikina City.
• Section 240, Article II, Chapter 12, Book V, Volume I, Revised Administrative Code of 1917 (Notarial Law) — States that the jurisdiction of a notary public is co-extensive with the province or city of commission, and that no notary shall possess authority to do any notarial act beyond the limits of his jurisdiction. Applied as the statutory basis for the territorial limitation on respondent's notarial authority.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied to hold that respondent's misrepresentation of his notarial commission status and unauthorized notarization constituted dishonest and deceitful conduct.
• Lawyer's Oath — Contains the mandate for lawyers to obey the laws and do no falsehood. Applied to hold that respondent's unauthorized notarization and misrepresentation violated this oath.

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Chairperson), Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, and Associate Justice Jose Portugal Perez concurred.