Laquindanum vs. Quintana

A notary public who notarizes documents outside the territorial jurisdiction of his commissioning court, performs notarial acts with an expired commission, permits unauthorized persons to notarize documents using his name, and notarizes documents without verifying the personal presence and identity of signatories commits multiple violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law and revocation of, and disqualification from, notarial commission.

Executive Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato was tasked, pursuant to A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, to closely monitor the activities of notaries public within the territorial bounds of her jurisdiction and to ensure that they did not extend notarial functions beyond the limits of their authority. Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana held a notarial commission issued by Executive Judge Reno E. Concha of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City, effective May 24, 2004 until December 31, 2005, which authorized him to perform notarial acts only within Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao. Midsayap, Cotabato, where Atty. Quintana maintained his office and practiced law, is part of the Province of Cotabato (North Cotabato), which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of his commissioning court. The City within the Province of Cotabato is Kidapawan City, not Cotabato City.

Executive Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato, wrote a letter dated November 29, 2005 to the Supreme Court requesting disciplinary action against Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana for performing notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato, which was beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial commission, and for allowing his wife to perform notarial acts in his absence. Atty. Quintana held a notarial commission issued by Executive Judge Reno E. Concha of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City, effective May 24, 2004 until December 31, 2005, authorizing him to perform notarial acts only within Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao. Midsayap, Cotabato, where Atty. Quintana maintained his office, is part of the Province of Cotabato (North Cotabato), which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of his commissioning court. The City within the Province of Cotabato is Kidapawan City, not Cotabato City.

Prior to filing the letter-complaint, Judge Laquindanum had written to Atty. Quintana directing him to stop notarizing documents within the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of Midsayap, since documents notarized by him had been reaching her office. Despite this directive, Atty. Quintana continued to perform notarial functions in Midsayap, as evidenced by an Affidavit of Loss of ATM Card executed by Kristine C. Guro and an Affidavit of Loss of Driver's License executed by Elenita D. Ballentes. A Joint Affidavit executed by Guro and Ballentes further attested that it was Atty. Quintana's wife who performed notarial acts whenever he was out of the office.

Atty. Quintana claimed that he had filed a petition for notarial commission before Branch 18, RTC, Midsayap, Cotabato, but Judge Laquindanum did not act on it for three weeks. He alleged that she required him to transfer his IBP membership from the Cotabato City Chapter to the Kidapawan City Chapter, where her sister was IBP President, and to obtain a Certification of Payments from the latter. He withdrew his petition and instead obtained a commission from Judge Concha in Cotabato City. He contended that he did not violate the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice because Midsayap is part of the Province of Cotabato and he was equipped with a notarial commission, maintaining that as a lawyer of good moral standing, he could practice his profession in the entire Philippines. He also argued that Judge Laquindanum had no authority to prohibit him from notarizing in the Province of Cotabato, since only Judge Concha, who issued his commission, and the Supreme Court could do so.

During the investigation before the Office of the Bar Confidant on February 28, 2007, Judge Laquindanum presented a Deed of Donation notarized by Atty. Quintana in 2004, in which Honorata Rosil appeared as one of the signatories as the donor's wife. However, Honorata Rosil had died on March 12, 2003, as shown by a Certificate of Death issued by the Civil Registrar. Judge Laquindanum also testified that Atty. Quintana continued to notarize documents from 2006 to 2007 despite the expiration of his commission on December 31, 2005, presenting several documents notarized after that date, including an Affidavit of Loss of Title executed by Betty G. Granada with subscription dated April 8, 2006, a Certificate of Candidacy of Elias Diosanta Arabis dated July 18, 2006, an Affidavit of Loss of Driver's License executed by Anecito C. Bernabe dated February 20, 2007, and an Affidavit of Loss executed by Santos V. Magbanua dated February 22, 2007.

Atty. Quintana admitted that all signatures appearing in the documents presented as exhibits were his, except for three — the affidavits of Guro, Ballentes, and Magbanua — which he said were signed by his wife. He claimed these were the result of an entrapment operation by Judge Laquindanum, designed to let somebody bring documents for notarization by his wife when they knew she was not a lawyer. He denied authorizing his wife to notarize documents, stating that he had slapped her and told her to stop, as it would ruin his profession. He asked for forgiveness and pleaded that his notarial commission was his family's only source of income. Records further showed that when Atty. Quintana filed his petition for notarial commission in 2004, he had not yet fully paid his IBP dues; arrears for 1993, 1995, 1996, and 1998 to 2003, as well as dues for 2005, were paid only on January 9, 2006.

• Authority to Monitor: Complainant maintained that pursuant to A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC and Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, she had the authority and responsibility as executive judge to monitor the activities of notaries public, including those performing notarial acts without authority, within her territorial jurisdiction in Midsayap, Cotabato.
• Territorial Violation: Complainant alleged that respondent performed notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato, which was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial commission for Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao.
• Unauthorized Notarization by Wife: Complainant alleged that respondent's wife performed notarial acts whenever respondent was out of the office, as attested to by a Joint Affidavit executed by Kristine C. Guro and Elenita D. Ballentes.
• Unpaid IBP Dues: Complainant explained that she did not act on respondent's petition for notarial commission because he had not paid his IBP dues, which was a requirement before a notarial commission could be granted.

• Territorial Jurisdiction: Respondent argued that he did not violate the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice because Midsayap, Cotabato, where he subscribed documents, is part of the Province of Cotabato, and he was equipped with a notarial commission. He maintained that he did not act outside the Province of Cotabato.
• Right to Practice Law Nationwide: Respondent contended that as a lawyer of good moral standing, he could practice his legal profession, including notarial acts, in the entire Philippines.
• Lack of Authority of Complainant: Respondent argued that Judge Laquindanum had no authority to issue a directive prohibiting him from notarizing in the Province of Cotabato, because only Executive Judge Concha, who issued his notarial commission, and the Supreme Court could do so.
• Wife's Acts Not Authorized: Respondent maintained that he did not authorize his wife to notarize documents and that he had scolded her and told her to stop, claiming the documents she signed were the result of an entrapment operation by Judge Laquindanum.
• Selective Treatment: Respondent lamented that he was singled out by Judge Laquindanum, who immediately issued notarial commissions to other lawyers without requiring numerous documents, while tracking down his pleadings, communicating with his clients, and disseminating information to humiliate him.
• Mitigation: Respondent asked for forgiveness, promised not to repeat the offenses, and pleaded that his notarial commission was his family's only source of income.

• Territorial Jurisdiction of Notarial Commission: Whether respondent violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing documents outside the territorial jurisdiction of his commissioning court.
• Expired Commission: Whether respondent violated the rules by performing notarial acts after his notarial commission had expired.
• Unauthorized Notarization by Wife: Whether respondent is liable for the notarial acts performed by his wife in his absence.
• Notarization with Deceased Signatory: Whether respondent violated the rules by notarizing a Deed of Donation where one signatory was already dead at the time of notarization.
• Right to Practice Law Nationwide: Whether respondent's status as a lawyer in good standing entitles him to perform notarial acts throughout the Philippines without a valid notarial commission in each territory.

• Territorial Jurisdiction of Notarial Commission: Yes. Notarizing documents outside the area of commission violates Sec. 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and also partakes of malpractice of law and falsification.
• Expired Commission: Yes. Performing notarial acts with an expired commission violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws and amounts to deliberate falsehood, since the public is deceived into believing the notary has been duly commissioned.
• Unauthorized Notarization by Wife: Yes. A notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register and cannot relieve himself of responsibility by blaming his wife or secretary; he is guilty of assisting in the unauthorized practice of law under Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Notarization with Deceased Signatory: Yes. Notarizing a document without determining the presence or qualifications of affiants constitutes gross negligence and a violation of Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the lawyer's oath.
• Right to Practice Law Nationwide: No. While lawyers in good standing may engage in the practice of law in the Philippines, not every lawyer can perform notarial functions without being commissioned as notary public under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice; the right to practice law does not include the right to notarize without a valid commission in the relevant territory.

• Territorial Jurisdiction of Notarial Commission: Under Sec. 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts only within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. Respondent's commission was issued by Executive Judge Concha of the RTC, Branch 14, Cotabato City, authorizing him to perform notarial acts only in Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao. Midsayap and Kabacan, Cotabato are part of the Province of North Cotabato, not Cotabato City or the Province of Maguindanao. Respondent's claim that he could exercise his commission in Midsayap because Cotabato City is part of the Province of Cotabato was found absolutely devoid of merit, as Cotabato City is not part of the Province of Cotabato. The act of notarizing documents outside one's area of commission is not to be taken lightly, as it also partakes of malpractice of law and falsification.

• Expired Commission: Respondent's notarial commission expired on December 31, 2005, yet he continued to notarize documents in 2006 and 2007, as evidenced by multiple documents presented by Judge Laquindanum. Notarizing documents with an expired commission violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, more specifically the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Because the public is deceived into believing that the notary has been duly commissioned, the act also amounts to indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath proscribes.

• Unauthorized Notarization by Wife: Respondent admitted that three documents were signed by his wife but denied authorizing her to notarize, claiming he scolded her and told her to stop. The Court rejected this defense, relying on the principle that a notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register and cannot relieve himself of responsibility by passing the buck to secretaries or other personnel. Respondent is personally accountable for the activities in his office and the acts of his personnel, including his wife, who acted as his secretary. He was thus found guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.

• Notarization with Deceased Signatory: A Deed of Donation notarized by respondent in 2004 bore the signature of Honorata Rosil as the donor's wife, but Honorata Rosil had died on March 12, 2003, as shown by her Certificate of Death. Under Sec. 2(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a person shall not perform a notarial act if the signatory is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of notarization and is not personally known to the notary public through competent evidence of identity. Notarizing a document without even determining the presence or qualifications of affiants demonstrated gross negligence and ignorance of the provisions of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, violating Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the lawyer's oath.

• Right to Practice Law Nationwide: Respondent claimed that as a lawyer in good standing, he had the right to practice his profession, including notarial acts, in the entire Philippines. The Court found this statement barren of merit. While lawyers in good standing may engage in the practice of law in the Philippines, not every lawyer — even one in good standing — can perform notarial functions without having been commissioned as notary public under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A lawyer must submit himself to the commissioning court by filing a petition for issuance of a notarial commission, and the commissioning court may grant or deny the petition in its sound discretion. Since respondent did not submit himself to the proper commissioning court for the territory where he performed notarial acts, he had no authority to claim he could perform notarial acts throughout the country. The Court also rejected the argument that Judge Laquindanum lacked authority to monitor his activities, holding that as the commissioning court in Midsayap, Cotabato, she had authority under Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice to monitor notaries public or those performing notarial acts without authority in her territorial jurisdiction.

• Territorial Limitation of Notarial Commission — Under Sec. 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public may perform notarial acts only within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued the commission. Notarizing documents outside this territory violates the Rules and also partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. The Court applied this by finding that respondent's commission from the RTC of Cotabato City did not authorize him to notarize in Midsayap or Kabacan, Cotabato, which are part of the Province of North Cotabato, not Cotabato City or the Province of Maguindanao.

• Personal Accountability of Notary Public for Notarial Register — A notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register and cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the buck to secretaries or other personnel. The Court applied this doctrine by holding respondent liable for documents notarized by his wife in his absence, rejecting his defense that he did not authorize her and had scolded her.

• Notarization as Invested with Substantive Public Interest — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. The Court relied on this principle to emphasize that a notarial commission should not be treated as a money-making venture and that those not qualified or authorized must be prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, and administrative offices.

• Distinction Between Right to Practice Law and Authority to Notarize — While lawyers in good standing may engage in the practice of law throughout the Philippines, not every lawyer can perform notarial functions without having been commissioned as notary public under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A lawyer must submit himself to the commissioning court, which may grant or deny the petition in its sound discretion. The Court applied this distinction by rejecting respondent's claim that his status as a lawyer in good standing entitled him to notarize documents anywhere in the country.

• "Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public." — This passage articulates the foundational rationale for strict regulation of notarial practice and is frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on notarial violations.

• "The act of notarizing documents outside one's area of commission is not to be taken lightly. Aside from being a violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, it also partakes of malpractice of law and falsification." — This defines the gravity of territorial violations, elevating what might seem like a mere procedural lapse to the level of malpractice and falsification.

• "Notarizing documents with an expired commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Since the public is deceived into believing that he has been duly commissioned, it also amounts to indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath proscribes." — This passage explains how notarizing with an expired commission simultaneously violates the Notarial Rules, the lawyer's oath, and the prohibition against falsehood.

• "A notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register; He cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the buck to their (sic) secretaries." — Quoted from Lingan vs. Calubaquib, this formulation establishes the strict personal accountability of the notary for all notarial acts performed under his name, regardless of who actually executed them.

• Lingan vs. Calubaquib, Adm. Case No. 5377, June 15, 2006 — Followed. The Court relied on this case for the doctrine that a notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register and cannot shift blame to secretaries or other personnel, applying it to hold respondent liable for documents notarized by his wife.

• Tan Tiong Bio vs. Gonzales, A.C. No. 6634, August 23, 2007, 530 SCRA 748 — Cited for the proposition that notarizing documents outside one's area of commission partakes of malpractice of law and falsification.

• Zoreta vs. Simpliciano, A.C. 6492, November 18, 2004, 443 SCRA 1 — Cited for the principle that notarizing documents with an expired commission violates the lawyer's oath and amounts to deliberate falsehood.

• Maddela vs. Dallong-Galacinao, A.C. No. 6491, January 31, 2005, 450 SCRA 19 — Followed. Cited for the doctrine that notarization is invested with substantive public interest and that a notarial commission should not be treated as a money-making venture, which in turn cited Nunga vs. Viray, A.C. No. 4758, 366 Phil. 155 (1999).

• Sec. 11, Rule III, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Provides that a person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts only within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two years. Applied to hold that respondent could not extend his notarial acts to Midsayap or Kabacan, Cotabato, which were outside the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of Cotabato City that issued his commission.

• Sec. 2(b)(1), Rule IV, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Provides that a person shall not perform a notarial act if the signatory to the instrument or document is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization. Applied to hold respondent liable for notarizing a Deed of Donation where one signatory, Honorata Rosil, was already deceased at the time of notarization.

• Rule XI, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Governs the duties, responsibilities, and liabilities of notaries public and the authority of commissioning courts to monitor them. Applied to uphold Judge Laquindanum's authority to monitor and direct respondent, as the executive judge of the RTC of Midsayap, Cotabato, within her territorial jurisdiction.

• Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — Directs every lawyer to uphold at all times the integrity and dignity of the legal profession. Applied as the overarching provision violated by respondent's multiple offenses.

• Canon 9, Code of Professional Responsibility — Requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law. Applied to hold respondent liable for allowing his wife, who was not a lawyer, to notarize documents in his absence.

• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Prohibits lawyers from engaging in any falsehood. Applied in connection with the notarization of a document bearing the signature of a deceased person and the notarization of documents with an expired commission.

• Lawyer's Oath — Unconditionally requires lawyers to obey the laws and not to do or declare any falsehood. Applied to hold that notarizing with an expired commission and notarizing without the presence of signatories constituted violations of the oath.

Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Antonio T. Carpio, Renato C. Corona (on leave), Conchita Carpio Morales (on leave), Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Presbitero J. Velasco Jr., Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, and Lucas P. Bersamin.