Guerrero vs. Giron

A lawyer who performs notarial acts without a valid notarial commission and tampers with the expiry dates on notarial stamps to conceal the lapse is guilty of malpractice and violates the lawyer's oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law and permanent disqualification from being commissioned as notary public.

Executive Judge Juanita T. Guerrero of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City, acting in her administrative capacity over notarial records within her jurisdiction, submitted a letter-report to the Office of the Bar Confidant after the Office of the Clerk of Court conducted an inventory of notarial records and discovered irregularities in respondent's notarial practice. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice govern the commission, term, and conduct of notaries public in the Philippines, requiring that a lawyer hold a valid commission to perform notarial acts and that the notarial stamp indicate the commission's validity period.

Respondent Atty. Ma. Eleanor La-Arni A. Giron was appointed and commissioned as notary public for Muntinlupa City for a term beginning on 27 September 2013 and ending on 31 December 2014. She was furnished a copy of her appointment, which expressly provided the expiry date of her commission. During the term, she notarized documents in the ordinary course of her practice, stamping each notarized instrument with the indicia of her commission's validity period.

After her commission expired on 31 December 2014, respondent continued to notarize documents. The Office of the Clerk of Court of Muntinlupa City, upon conducting an inventory of its notarial records, discovered that respondent had submitted notarial reports beyond the expired term of her commission. Upon closer examination of the notarized documents, it was further found that the dates appearing on the notarial stamps — which should indicate the expiry date of her commission — had been erased or tampered with. Specifically, the "4" in "2014" on the stamped portions below her signature was altered to a "5," whether superimposed or handwritten, to make it appear that her commission was valid until 31 December 2015. In total, respondent notarized twenty-eight documents after the expiration of her commission.

Executive Judge Juanita T. Guerrero submitted a letter-report dated 24 September 2015 to the Office of the Bar Confidant, endorsing the matter for appropriate action. By Resolution dated 20 January 2016, the Court required respondent to comment and referred the case to Executive Judge Guerrero for investigation, report, and recommendation.

In her comment, respondent asserted she acted in good faith, believing her two-year commission — received on 27 September 2013 — covered the years 2014 and 2015 and would expire on 31 December 2015. She apologized for her error, disclaimed any intention to exercise notarial privileges beyond the validity of her commission, and noted it was her first and only application for a notarial commission. She further averred that she notarized only a few documents, exclusively for clients or members of her law firm, and that her continued filing of notarial reports conclusively established her good faith. Executive Judge Guerrero, in her Report/Recommendation dated 27 September 2017, found that respondent's appointment expressly stated the commission would end on 31 December 2014, that the tampered dates on the stamps belied her claim of good faith, and that twenty-eight documents — not a few — were notarized after expiration. The Executive Judge recommended disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for two years.

• Unauthorized Notarial Acts: Complainant alleged that respondent performed notarial acts despite the expiration of her notarial commission, as discovered during an inventory of notarial records by the Office of the Clerk of Court of Muntinlupa City.
• Tampering of Notarial Stamps: Complainant alleged that the dates on the notarial stamps of documents notarized by respondent were erased or tampered with to make it appear that her commission was still valid, constituting bad faith.

• Good Faith: Respondent asserted she believed in good faith that her notarial commission was valid and would expire on 31 December 2015, reasoning that since she received the commission on 27 September 2013, her two-year term covered 2014 and 2015.
• Lack of Intent: Respondent apologized for her error, disclaimed any intention to exercise notarial privileges beyond the validity of her commission, and averred it was her first and only application for a notarial commission.
• Limited Scope: Respondent claimed she notarized only a few documents, exclusively for clients or members of her law firm.
• Continued Reporting as Evidence of Good Faith: Respondent argued that her continued filing of notarial reports conclusively established her good faith.

• Liability for Unauthorized Notarial Acts: Whether respondent is administratively liable for performing notarial acts after the expiration of her notarial commission.
• Good Faith Defense: Whether respondent's claim of good faith — that she believed her commission expired on 31 December 2015 — is credible and exempts her from liability.
• Appropriate Penalty: Whether the Executive Judge's recommended penalty of two years' disqualification from being commissioned as notary public is sufficient, or whether a more severe sanction is warranted.

• Liability for Unauthorized Notarial Acts: Yes. Respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the lawyer's oath, and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility by performing notarial acts without a valid commission.
• Good Faith Defense: No. The claim of good faith was belied by the tampered dates on the notarial stamps and by the fact that respondent was furnished a copy of her appointment expressly stating the expiry date of 31 December 2014.
• Appropriate Penalty: The recommended penalty was insufficient. Respondent was suspended from the practice of law for two years and permanently barred from being commissioned as notary public, the tampering of dates aggravating the violation beyond what the Executive Judge recommended.

• Liability for Unauthorized Notarial Acts: Notarization is invested with substantive public interest; it converts 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 his duties. Without a commission, a lawyer is unauthorized to perform any notarial act and is remiss in his professional duties. Respondent admittedly performed notarial acts without a valid commission, having notarized twenty-eight documents after her commission expired on 31 December 2014. This constitutes a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which proscribes unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court relied on Nunga vs. Atty. Viray, which held that notarization without authorization warrants disciplinary action, as the lawyer is indulging in deliberate falsehood by making it appear he is duly commissioned when he is not.

• Good Faith Defense: Respondent's defense of good faith was rejected on two grounds. First, she was furnished a copy of her appointment, which expressly provided that her commission would end on 31 December 2014; she could have easily verified the term. Second, and more damningly, the dates on the stamped portions of the notarized documents were tampered with — the "4" in "2014" was altered to "5," superimposed or handwritten. Each act of tampering served as a constant reminder that her commission was set to expire on 31 December 2014. The multiple acts of changing dates from 2014 to 2015 exhibited bad faith and established respondent's intention to continue notarizing documents even with an expired commission, directly contradicting her professed innocent belief.

• Appropriate Penalty: The Court found the Executive Judge's recommended penalty of two years' disqualification from being commissioned as notary public insufficient in light of the aggravating circumstance of tampering. A long line of cases imposed serious sanctions on lawyers for notarizing documents with expired commissions: in Zoreta vs. Atty. Simpliciano, the respondent was suspended for two years and permanently barred from being commissioned as notary public; in Judge Laquindanum vs. Atty. Quintana, suspension of six months and two years' disqualification were imposed; in Japitana vs. Atty. Parada, two years' suspension and permanent bar were imposed; and in Spouses Frias vs. Atty. Abao, the same penalty of two years' suspension and permanent bar was meted out. Considering respondent's unauthorized notarization of twenty-eight documents coupled with deliberate tampering of stamped dates, the Court imposed the same penalty: two years' suspension from the practice of law and permanent bar from being commissioned as notary public.

• Public Interest in Notarization — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity, and entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined. The Court applied this doctrine to emphasize the gravity of respondent's unauthorized notarization.

• Unauthorized Practice as Notary Public as Disciplinary Offense — Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. Performing a notarial act without a commission violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, particularly the Notarial Law, and constitutes deliberate falsehood by making it appear that the lawyer is duly commissioned when he is not. This falls within the prohibition of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Court applied this doctrine to find respondent guilty of malpractice and violation of the Code.

• Tampering as Evidence of Bad Faith — Altering the expiry date on notarial stamps to conceal the lapse of a notarial commission constitutes bad faith and establishes intent to continue notarizing documents without authority. The Court applied this principle to reject respondent's good faith defense, as each act of changing "2014" to "2015" on the stamped portions belied her claim of innocent mistake.

• "Time and again, the Court has emphasized that notarization of documents is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity." — This passage articulates the doctrinal foundation for the heightened standard of care required of notaries public and explains why unauthorized notarization is a serious disciplinary offense.

• "By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court, respondent violated not only her oath to obey the laws, particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice, but also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which proscribe all lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and direct them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at all times." — This passage identifies the specific provisions violated and links the unauthorized notarization to the lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, forming the ratio decidendi for the finding of guilt.

• "With each act of tampering, respondent was constantly reminded that her commission was set to expire on 31 December 2014. If respondent truly acted in good faith, she could have easily checked the term of her commission since she was furnished a copy of her appointment." — This passage articulates the reasoning for rejecting the good faith defense, establishing that tampering with notarial stamp dates is incompatible with innocent mistake.

• Nunga vs. Atty. Viray, A.C. No. 4758, 30 April 1999 — Controlling precedent establishing that notarization without a commission warrants disciplinary action, as it violates the lawyer's oath and constitutes deliberate falsehood. Followed and applied directly to respondent's case.

• Zoreta vs. Atty. Simpliciano, A.C. No. 6492, 18 November 2004 — Precedent imposing two years' suspension and permanent bar from being commissioned as notary public for notarizing documents after expiration of commission. Followed as part of the line of cases supporting the penalty imposed.

• Judge Laquindanum vs. Atty. Quintana, A.C. No. 7036, 29 June 2009 — Precedent imposing six months' suspension and two years' disqualification for notarizing outside the area of commission and with an expired commission. Cited as part of the consistent line of disciplinary sanctions.

• Japitana vs. Atty. Parada, A.C. No. 10859, 26 January 2016 — Precedent imposing two years' suspension and permanent bar from being commissioned as notary public for notarizing documents with no existing commission. Followed as direct support for the penalty imposed on respondent.

• Spouses Frias vs. Atty. Abao, A.C. No. 12467, 10 April 2019 — Recent precedent imposing two years' suspension and permanent bar for performing notarial acts without the required commission. Followed as the most recent and directly analogous authority supporting the penalty.

• Spouses Elmer and Mila Soriano vs. Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, A.C. No. 10540, 28 November 2019 — Cited for the proposition that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his duties.

• 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 respondent liable for performing notarial acts without a valid commission and for tampering with notarial stamp dates, which constituted dishonest and deceitful conduct.

• Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — Directs lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession at all times. Applied alongside Canon 1 to establish that respondent's unauthorized notarization and tampering undermined the integrity of the legal profession.

• 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Governs the commission, term, and conduct of notaries public. Applied to establish that respondent's commission expired on 31 December 2014 and that her continued performance of notarial acts thereafter constituted a violation of the Rules.

• Lawyer's Oath — Requires lawyers to obey the laws. Applied to hold that performing notarial acts without a commission and tampering with stamp dates violated the oath, as such acts constitute deliberate falsehood and disobedience to the Notarial Law.

Peralta, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Gesmundo, Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Lopez, Delos Santos, Gaerlan, and Rosario, JJ., concurred.