Judge Santillan vs. Atty. Solilapsi

A lawyer who performs notarial acts after the expiration of his or her notarial commission is administratively liable for violating Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility; the claim that office staff notarized the documents without the lawyer's knowledge or permission does not absolve the lawyer, whose bounden duty is to ensure that only qualified or authorized persons act as notaries public.

Atty. Nepthali P. Solilapsi is a member of the Bar whose notarial commission expired in December 2018. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Administrative Matter No. 02-8-13-SC, govern the commission and performance of notarial acts and permit a commissioned notary public to perform notarial acts only for the stated term unless earlier revoked or resigned. Judge Adelbert S. Santillan was the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Polomolok, South Cotabato, before whom the administrative matter was investigated.

Atty. Nepthali P. Solilapsi was a member of the Bar whose notarial commission expired in December 2018. Judge Adelbert S. Santillan was the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Polomolok, South Cotabato. In March 2019, Princess Ivory Cabaguas Villanueva requested the office of Judge Santillan to issue a Certificate of Notarial Act indicating that Atty. Solilapsi recently notarized a Certificate of End of Contract and an Affidavit of Employment. Because of the request, Judge Santillan discovered that Atty. Solilapsi notarized the documents in March 2019 despite the expiration of his notarial commission in December 2018.

On March 18, 2019, Judge Santillan issued Memorandum No. 8, Series of 2019 directing Atty. Solilapsi to explain and show cause why no disciplinary action should be meted out against him. In his Letter-Explanation, Atty. Solilapsi stated that the subject documents were notarized by his law office, but he only discovered their existence when his attention was called regarding the matter. He averred that the documents were notarized in his absence and without his knowledge and permission.

During the investigation, Judge Santillan discovered that the Certificate of End of Contract and the Affidavit of Employment were the 208th and 331st documents, respectively, that Atty. Solilapsi notarized after the lapse of his notarial commission in December 2018. He found that Atty. Solilapsi had notarized more than 300 documents with an expired notarial commission. Judge Santillan did not give credence to Atty. Solilapsi's excuse that the subject documents were notarized in his absence and without his knowledge and permission.

• Expired Commission and Volume of Notarizations: Complainant maintained that Atty. Solilapsi notarized more than 300 legal documents with an expired notarial commission, in violation of Administrative Matter No. 02-8-13-SC, or the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Recommended Penalty: Complainant recommended that Atty. Solilapsi be disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for a period of two years, from January 2020 to December 2021.
• Rejection of Respondent's Excuse: Complainant did not give credence to Atty. Solilapsi's claim that the subject documents were notarized in his absence and without his knowledge and permission.

• No Knowledge or Permission: Respondent explained that the subject documents were notarized by his law office, but he only discovered their existence when his attention was called regarding the matter; they were notarized in his absence and without his knowledge and permission.

• Administrative Liability for Expired Notarial Commission: Whether Atty. Solilapsi should be held administratively liable for having notarized more than 300 legal documents despite the expiration of his notarial commission.
• Effect of Office Staff's Acts: Whether Atty. Solilapsi's claim that his office staff notarized the subject documents in his absence and without his knowledge and permission absolves him of administrative liability.

• Administrative Liability for Expired Notarial Commission: Yes. Atty. Solilapsi is guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Effect of Office Staff's Acts: No. The claim does not absolve him; as a notary public, he had the bounden duty to ensure that only qualified or authorized persons act as notaries public.

• Administrative Liability for Expired Notarial Commission: Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act; it is invested with substantive public interest, so only qualified or authorized persons may act as notaries public. Without the requisite notarial commission, a lawyer is proscribed from performing any notarial act allowed under the Notarial Rules. Atty. Solilapsi undisputedly notarized more than 300 legal documents with an expired commission. This violated Section 11, Rule III of the Notarial Rules, the Lawyer's Oath, and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the CPR. Nunga vs. Atty. Viray held that a Bar member who notarizes without authorization or commission may be disciplined for violating the Notarial Rules, Lawyer's Oath, and CPR. The Court imposed suspension from law practice for two years and permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence, and warned that heavier penalties will be meted out to lawyers who casually violate the Notarial Rules.
• Effect of Office Staff's Acts: The excuse that office staff notarized the documents in his absence and without his knowledge or permission is not acceptable and does not absolve him of administrative liability. It is his bounden duty as a notary public to ensure that only qualified or authorized persons act as such; he cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by feigning ignorance of his office staff's acts and passing the buck to them. The Court found the allegation incredible: accepting that he was unaware of the notarization of over 300 legal documents performed in his name and in his law office is unthinkable and contrary to natural human experience.

• Notarization as an act invested with substantive public interest — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act; it is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. The Court applied this principle to hold that Atty. Solilapsi could not perform notarial acts after his commission expired.
• Disciplinary liability for notarizing without a valid commission — A member of the Bar who notarizes a document at a time when he or she had no authorization or commission may be subjected to disciplinary action for violating the Notarial Rules, the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Atty. Solilapsi's notarization of more than 300 documents with an expired commission brought him within this rule.
• Non-delegability of the notary public's duty and rejection of the office-staff excuse — A notary public has the bounden duty to ensure that only qualified or authorized persons act as notaries public and cannot escape liability by claiming that office staff notarized documents in his absence and without his knowledge or permission. The Court rejected Atty. Solilapsi's explanation as incredible and contrary to natural human experience.
• Penalty for repeated or mass notarization without commission — Lawyers who notarize documents with expired notarial commissions may be suspended from the practice of law for two to three years and permanently disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public, depending on the gravity of the transgression. For notarizing more than 300 documents, the Court imposed two years' suspension and permanent disqualification.

• "notarization is not an empty, meaningless, [and] routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public." — States the foundational principle on notarization and the public interest that justifies restricting notarial functions to qualified or authorized persons.
• "That his office staff notarized the subject documents in his absence and without his knowledge and permission is not an acceptable excuse that would absolve him of any administrative liability in the case. After all, it is his bounden duty as a notary public to ensure that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as such." — Rejects the respondent's defense and establishes the notary public's non-delegable responsibility over notarial acts done in his name and office.
• "To accept his explanation that he was unaware of the notarization of over 300 legal documents, performed in his name and in his law office, is unthinkable as it is contrary to natural human experience." — Explains why the Court disbelieved the claim of lack of knowledge and found the respondent administratively liable.
• "Let it be known that the Court will not hesitate to mete out a heavier penalty to lawyers who casually violate the Notarial Rules and disregard their sworn duties and responsibilities as members of the Bar." — Signals the Court's stance on violations of the Notarial Rules and supports the penalty imposed.

• Nunga vs. Atty. Viray, 366 Phil. 155 (1999) — Cited for the rule that a member of the Bar who notarizes a document without authorization or commission may be subjected to disciplinary action for violating the Notarial Rules, the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Zoreta vs. Atty. Simpliciano, 485 Phil. 395, 403 (2004) — Cited for the principle that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act and is invested with substantive public interest, so only qualified or authorized persons may act as notaries public.
• Spouses Frias vs. Atty. Abao, A.C. No. 12467, April 10, 2019 — Cited for the proscription against performing notarial acts without the requisite notarial commission and for the penalty imposed in cases of notarizing with an expired commission.
• Cabanos vs. Atty. Mojica, A.C. No. 12869 (Notice), March 1, 2021 — Cited in support of rejecting the excuse that office staff notarized the documents in the respondent's absence and without his knowledge or permission.
• Sps. Gacuya vs. Atty. Solbita, 782 Phil. 253 (2016) — Cited among cases imposing disciplinary penalties on lawyers who notarized documents with expired notarial commissions.
• Japitana vs. Atty. Parado, 779 Phil. 182 (2016) — Cited among cases imposing disciplinary penalties on lawyers who notarized documents with expired notarial commissions.

• Section 11, Rule III, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) — A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for two years commencing the first day of January of the year of commissioning, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned. Atty. Solilapsi's commission expired in December 2018, so his notarizations in March 2019 and thereafter were without authority.
• Lawyer's Oath — Violated by Atty. Solilapsi when he performed notarial acts despite the expiration of his notarial commission, as found in the dispositive portion.
• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Atty. Solilapsi violated this by notarizing without a valid commission.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court found this violated by the unauthorized notarizations.
• Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession and support the activities of the Integrated Bar. The unauthorized notarizations were held to violate this duty.

Caguioa (Chairperson), Gaerlan, and Singh, JJ., concurred. Dimaampao, J., was on official leave.