De Jesus vs. Sanchez-Malit

A notary public who knowingly affixes the notarial seal on a document containing false statements, or who notarizes documents without the signatures of the parties who purportedly appeared before her, is guilty of misconduct and violation of her oath as notary public, warranting suspension from the practice of law and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, provided the misconduct does not rise to the level warranting outright disbarment.

Mercedita De Jesus, a market stall holder in Dinalupihan, Bataan, filed a disbarment complaint against Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit, who served as a consultant of the local government unit of Dinalupihan, Bataan, and who acted as a notary public. The relationship between the parties was primarily that of notary public and client, with respondent having drafted and notarized several documents for complainant over a period of years, including a real estate mortgage, a lease agreement, and a sale agreement over a property covered by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA). The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which govern the conduct of notaries public in the Philippines, provide the regulatory framework against which respondent's acts were measured.

Mercedita De Jesus was a market stall holder in Dinalupihan, Bataan, who had engaged the services of Atty. Juvy Mell Sanchez-Malit as notary public on several occasions. Respondent also served as a consultant of the local government unit of Dinalupihan, Bataan, and was therefore aware that the public market stall occupied by complainant was government-owned. The dispute arose from a series of documents that respondent drafted and notarized for complainant, each of which allegedly caused complainant legal and financial problems.

On 1 March 2002, respondent drafted and notarized a Real Estate Mortgage of the public market stall that falsely named complainant as its "absolute and registered owner." As a result of this misrepresentation, the mortgagee sued complainant for perjury and for collection of a sum of money. Prior to this, respondent had also notarized two other problematic documents. The first was a lease agreement notarized sometime in September 1999, which complainant later discovered had not been signed by the lessees when she lost her copy and requested another from respondent. The second was a sale agreement over a property covered by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA), which complainant entered into with a certain Nicomedes Tala on 17 February 1998; respondent drafted and notarized the agreement but did not advise complainant that the property was still covered by the period within which it could not be alienated.

After filing her initial complaint on 23 June 2004, complainant subsequently submitted additional evidence, including three Special Powers of Attorney (SPAs) notarized by respondent that were signed only by the named attorney-in-fact, Florina B. Limpioso, but not by the principals named therein. An Affidavit from complainant's secretary/treasurer, Irene Tolentino, corroborated the allegations against respondent. Thereafter, complainant filed an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Submission of Additional Evidence, attaching copies of numerous other documents notarized by respondent, including an Extra Judicial Deed of Partition, five SPAs lacking signatures of either the principal or attorney-in-fact, two deeds of sale with incomplete signatures, an unsigned Sworn Statement, a lease contract lacking the lessor's signature, five unsigned Affidavits, an unsigned insurance claim form, an unsigned Invitation Letter to a potential investor in Japan, an unsigned Bank Certification, and an unsigned Consent to Adoption. In total, records showed that from 2002 to 2004, respondent had notarized 22 documents that were either unsigned or lacking the signatures of the parties who purportedly appeared before her.

Respondent offered various explanations for the defective notarizations. Regarding the real estate mortgage, she claimed the contract was hastily prepared by copying from a similar file on her computer, and the phrase "absolute and registered owner" was inadvertently left unedited. She argued that complainant could technically be considered the owner under a "Build Operate and Transfer" contract with the local government unit, and that complainant had previously been represented as absolute owner in a prior mortgage without complaint. Regarding the lease agreement, respondent claimed she had prepared a new copy at complainant's request, relying on complainant's assurance that the lessees would sign it and return it in lieu of the original court copy, which complainant allegedly reneged on. As for the CLOA sale agreement, respondent contended that complainant was an experienced realty broker who needed no advice, and that the agreement itself expressly stated the property was the subject of a pending DARAB case. Respondent further maintained that the SPAs were properly notarized because the attorney-in-fact personally appeared before her, and that the acknowledgment stated the document must be notarized in the principal's place of residence.

• Grave Misconduct in Notarization of Real Estate Mortgage: Complainant alleged that respondent knowingly drafted and notarized a Real Estate Mortgage that falsely named her as the absolute and registered owner of a government-owned public market stall, which led to a perjury charge and a collection suit against her.
• Notarization of Unsigned Lease Agreement: Complainant contended that respondent notarized a lease agreement without the signatures of the lessees, which complainant only discovered when she lost her copy and requested a replacement.
• Failure to Advise on CLOA Sale Agreement: Complainant asserted that respondent drafted and notarized a sale agreement over a CLOA-covered property without advising her that the property was still within the period during which it could not be alienated.
• Pattern of Improper Notarization: Complainant submitted additional evidence, including SPAs and numerous other documents notarized by respondent that were either unsigned or lacked the signatures of the parties who purportedly appeared before her, demonstrating a pattern of notarial malpractice.

• Inadvertent Error in Real Estate Mortgage: Respondent argued that the phrase "absolute and registered owner" was inadvertently left unedited when the mortgage contract was hastily copied from a similar file on her computer, and that complainant could technically be considered the owner under a Build Operate and Transfer contract with the local government unit.
• Good Faith in Lease Agreement: Respondent maintained that she prepared a new copy of the lease agreement to accommodate complainant's request for an extra copy, relying on complainant's assurance that the lessees would sign it and that it would be returned in lieu of the original court copy, which complainant reneged on.
• No Duty to Advise on CLOA Sale: Respondent contended that complainant was an experienced realty broker who needed no advice on the repercussions of the CLOA transaction, and that the agreement itself expressly stated the property was subject to a pending DARAB case, thereby notifying complainant of its status.
• Proper Notarization of SPAs: Respondent claimed the SPAs were properly notarized because the attorney-in-fact personally appeared before her, limiting the notarization to the attorney-in-fact's participation, and that the acknowledgment stated the document must be notarized in the principal's place of residence.
• Inadmissibility of Additional Documents: Respondent argued that the additional documents submitted by complainant were inadmissible because they were obtained in violation of Section 4, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and that the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion was actually a prohibited supplemental pleading under the rules of the Committee on Bar Discipline.
• Mitigating Circumstances: Respondent prayed for consideration of mitigating circumstances, including absence of prior disciplinary record, absence of dishonest or selfish motive, personal and emotional problems, good-faith efforts to rectify, cooperative attitude, character or reputation, remorse, and remoteness of prior offenses.

• Admissibility of Additional Evidence: Whether the additional notarized documents submitted by complainant through an Urgent Ex-Parte Motion are admissible despite being allegedly obtained in violation of Section 4, Rule VI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Nature of the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion: Whether complainant's Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Submission of Additional Evidence constitutes a prohibited supplemental pleading under the rules of the Committee on Bar Discipline.
• Notarial Misconduct: Whether respondent committed misconduct and violated her oath as notary public by notarizing documents containing false statements and documents that were unsigned or lacked the signatures of the parties who purportedly appeared before her.

• Admissibility of Additional Evidence: Yes. The additional documents are admissible because the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice contain no provision declaring documents obtained in violation thereof inadmissible, and the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies only to government action, not to acts between private individuals.
• Nature of the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion: No. The motion was not a supplemental pleading because it did not set up new facts justifying, enlarging, or changing the kind of relief with respect to the same subject matter; it merely strengthened the existing charge that respondent notarized incomplete documents.
• Notarial Misconduct: Yes. Respondent violated Canon 1 and Rules 1.01, 1.02, and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and her oath as notary public by knowingly notarizing a document containing a false statement and by notarizing at least 22 documents that were either unsigned or lacked the signatures of the parties who purportedly appeared before her.

• Admissibility of Additional Evidence: The Court applied the principle established in Tolentino vs. Mendoza, where it was held that evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by law or the rules. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, like Rule 24 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993 in Tolentino, provides sanctions for violations but does not state that documents obtained in violation thereof are inadmissible. The exclusionary rule against unreasonable searches and seizures, as explained in People vs. Hipol, governs only the relationship between the individual and the State and its agents, not between private individuals. Since complainant, a private individual, obtained the subject documents, the constitutional proscription does not apply. Accordingly, the IBP correctly considered the additional notarized documents in evidence.

• Nature of the Urgent Ex-Parte Motion: The Court applied the definition of a supplemental pleading as one that serves to bolster or add to the primary pleading by setting up new facts that justify, enlarge, or change the kind of relief with respect to the same subject matter. Since one of complainant's original charges was already that respondent notarized incomplete documents, as shown by the SPAs and lease agreement attached to the Affidavit-Complaint, the submission of additional evidence to strengthen that existing charge did not constitute a supplemental pleading. Complainant was not legally barred from submitting additional evidence in support of her complaint.

• Notarial Misconduct: The Court emphasized that notarization is invested with substantive public interest, converting a private document into a public document entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of notarial duties. Where the notary public has personal knowledge of a false statement in the instrument to be notarized yet proceeds to affix the notarial seal, the Court must discipline the notary public. Respondent fully knew that complainant was not the owner of the mortgaged market stall, yet she notarized the document naming complainant as "absolute and registered owner." That complainant comprehended the contract's provisions did not lessen respondent's liability but heightened it, as she tolerated a wrongful act. This conduct breached Canon 1 and Rules 1.01 and 1.02 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Regarding the unsigned documents, respondent's explanation about the lease agreement was deemed incredible, as she could have provided a certified photocopy of her file copy if it had indeed borne the lessees' signatures. The fact that respondent notarized 22 unsigned or incompletely signed documents from 2002 to 2004 demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the duty to demand that documents be signed in her presence. By acknowledging that parties personally appeared before her when they had not, respondent violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and her oath to do no falsehood. Although disbarment has been imposed in several instances for similar conduct, the Court applied the rule that disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer, and that a lesser penalty will suffice where it can accomplish the desired end. The blatant disregard of basic notarial duties warranted suspension from the practice of law for one year and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, rather than outright disbarment.

• Notarization as a Substantive Public Interest — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity, and entitling it to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of notarial duties; otherwise, public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents would be undermined. The Court applied this doctrine to hold respondent liable for notarizing a document containing a false statement and numerous unsigned documents, as her conduct undermined the integrity of the notarization process.

• Exclusionary Rule Limited to State Action — The constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures governs only the relationship between the individual and the State and its agents, not between private individuals. The Bill of Rights tempers governmental power and protects the individual against aggression and unwarranted interference by government departments and agencies; it cannot be extended to acts of private individuals against one another. The Court applied this doctrine to uphold the admissibility of documents obtained by complainant, a private individual, even if allegedly obtained in violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

• Disbarment as a Penalty of Last Resort — Disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court. The Court will not disbar a lawyer where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end. The Court applied this doctrine by imposing suspension from the practice of law for one year and perpetual disqualification from notarial commission, rather than outright disbarment, finding that the lesser punishment was sufficient to address respondent's blatant disregard of her basic duties as a notary public.

• Duty of Notary Public to Ensure Personal Appearance and Signatures — A notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same ones who executed it and who personally appeared before the notary public to attest to the contents and truth of what are stated therein. It is the duty of a notarial officer to demand that a document be signed in his or her presence. The Court applied this doctrine to find respondent liable for notarizing 22 documents that were either unsigned or lacked the signatures of the parties who purportedly appeared before her, violating Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and her oath to do no falsehood.

• "Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. Thus, a notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face." — This passage articulates the doctrinal foundation for the heightened duty of care required of notaries public, explaining why notarization is invested with substantive public interest and why violations thereof warrant severe disciplinary measures.

• "Where the notary public admittedly has personal knowledge of a false statement or information contained in the instrument to be notarized, yet proceeds to affix the notarial seal on it, the Court must not hesitate to discipline the notary public accordingly as the circumstances of the case may dictate." — This formulation establishes the standard for disciplining notaries public who knowingly notarize false instruments, directly applying to respondent's notarization of the real estate mortgage that falsely named complainant as owner of a government-owned property.

• "The Constitutional proscription enshrined in the Bill of Rights does not concern itself with the relation between a private individual and another individual. It governs the relationship between the individual and the State and its agents." — This passage, quoted from People vs. Hipol, defines the scope of the exclusionary rule and explains why documents obtained by a private individual without state involvement remain admissible, a principle applied to uphold the admissibility of the additional notarized documents submitted by complainant.

• "Disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and the Court will not disbar a lawyer where a lesser penalty will suffice to accomplish the desired end." — This formulation states the controlling standard for imposing disbarment versus lesser penalties, explaining why the Court chose suspension and perpetual disqualification from notarial commission over outright disbarment despite the seriousness of respondent's misconduct.

• Tolentino vs. Mendoza, 483 Phil. 546 (2004) — Controlling precedent on the admissibility of documents allegedly obtained in violation of administrative rules. The Court followed its reasoning that where the applicable rules provide sanctions for violations but do not declare evidence obtained in violation thereof inadmissible, and where the constitutional exclusionary rule applies only to state action, such documents remain admissible.

• People vs. Hipol — Cited for the proposition that the constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures governs only the relationship between the individual and the State, not between private individuals. The Court applied this principle to uphold the admissibility of documents obtained by complainant, a private individual.

• Lustestica vs. Bernabe, A.C. No. 6258, 24 August 2010, 628 SCRA 613 — Cited for the doctrine that notarization is invested with substantive public interest and that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of notarial duties.

• Heirs of the Late Spouses Lucas and Francisca Villanueva vs. Atty. Salud P. Beradio, 541 Phil. 17 (2007) — Cited for the principle that where a notary public has personal knowledge of a false statement in an instrument yet proceeds to notarize it, the Court must discipline the notary public to preserve the integrity of the notarization process.

• Realino vs. Villamor, 176 Phil. 632 (1978) — Cited for the duty of a notarial officer to demand that a document be signed in his or her presence.

• Cabanilla vs. Cristal-Tenorio, 461 Phil. 1 (2003) — Cited for the rule that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the persons who signed it are the very same ones who executed it and personally appeared before the notary public.

• Bantolo vs. Castillon, Jr., 514 Phil. 628 (2005) — Cited for the doctrine that disbarment is meted out only in clear cases of misconduct and that the Court will not disbar a lawyer where a lesser penalty will suffice.

• Planters Development Bank vs. LZK Holdings and Development Corp., 496 Phil. 263 (2005) — Cited for the definition of a supplemental pleading as one that sets up new facts justifying, enlarging, or changing the kind of relief with respect to the same subject matter as the original complaint.

• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes." Applied to hold respondent liable for notarizing a real estate mortgage that falsely named complainant as owner of a government-owned property, thereby abetting defiance of the law.

• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Applied to respondent's notarization of a document containing a false statement and her notarization of unsigned documents.

• Rule 1.02, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system." Applied to respondent's toleration of a wrongful act in the real estate mortgage notarization.

• Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — "A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice." Applied to respondent's acknowledgment that parties personally appeared before her when they had not, constituting falsehood in the notarial acknowledgment.

• Section 4, Rule VI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (Adm. No. 02-08-13 SC) — Governs inspection, copying, and disposal of notarial register entries. Respondent argued that documents obtained in violation of this rule were inadmissible, but the Court held that the rule provides no exclusionary sanction for violations.

• Section 3, Rule 128, Revised Rules on Evidence — Provides that evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by law or the rules. Applied to uphold the admissibility of the additional notarized documents, since neither the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice nor the Revised Rules of Evidence provided for their exclusion.

The following justices concurred in the Resolution: Antonio T. Carpio, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza, Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, and Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen. No separate concurring opinions were issued.