Lim and Wong vs. Tabiliran, Jr.

A lawyer who performs notarial acts without a valid commission, fails to comply with the recording and submission requirements of the Rules on Notarial Practice, and notarizes documents in favor of a disqualified relative is administratively liable for violation of the Notarial Rules, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyer's Oath. The penalties of suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and permanent disqualification from being commissioned as notary public are proper where the lawyer's willful malfeasance is established.

Complainants Atty. Bryan S. Lim was the Acting Registrar of Deeds of the Province of Zamboanga del Norte, and Nestor R. Wong was an agent authorized by his sisters to sell their properties. Respondent Atty. Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr. was a notary public who had been issued notarial commissions for specific periods: February 12, 2007 until December 31, 2008; July 23, 2009 until December 31, 2010; March 31, 2011 until December 31, 2012; and August 28, 2013 until December 31, 2014. The administrative case arose from respondent's notarization of documents related to the sale of properties owned by Nestor's sisters, which transactions later became the subject of disputes and separate proceedings.

Nestor R. Wong was appointed by his sisters, Elsa Wong and Virginia Wong, as their agent to sell their respective properties in Laoy, San Antonio, Katipunan, Zamboanga Del Norte. On December 13, 2011, Nestor appointed a sub-agent, Raquel Go Esturco, who found a buyer, Naomi Jumanguin, for Virginia's land. On January 3, 2012, Nestor signed the corresponding Deed of Sale of Virginia's land, which was prepared and notarized by respondent, a notary public. After signing the Deed of Sale, Nestor signed other documents given by Esturco, which the latter claimed to be mere copies of the previous Deed of Sale. Nestor then received P50,000.00 as the purchase price of the subject lot.

Several months later, Raul Jumanguin, the buyer's father, approached Nestor to borrow money and disclosed that Esturco showed him several deeds of sale: (a) Absolute Deed of Sale dated May 24, 2011, in favor of Esturco; (b) Absolute Deed of Sale dated May 24, 2012, in favor of Esturco; (c) Absolute Deed of Sale dated December 14, 2011, in favor of Esturco and respondent's son, Venus Baybayan Tabiliran; and (d) Absolute Deed of Sale dated February 20, 2012, in favor of Esturco and Venus. Meanwhile, Esturco went to the Registry of Deeds to register the Absolute Deed of Sale dated May 24, 2011. Atty. Lim, the Acting Registrar of Deeds, required her to indicate the name of her spouse, but she refused and withdrew all her documents. Thereafter, on May 29, 2013, she filed a petition for mandamus, and on September 27, 2013, a disbarment case, against Atty. Lim.

On March 23, 2014, Atty. Lim filed a counter-complaint for disbarment against respondent, claiming that the latter notarized documents with an expired commission. Respondent had been commissioned only for February 12, 2007 until December 31, 2008; July 23, 2009 until December 31, 2010; March 31, 2011 until December 31, 2012; and August 28, 2013 until December 31, 2014, but nonetheless notarized an Authorization on March 18, 2011 and a Confirmation of Deed of Sale of Land in June 2013. Atty. Lim also averred that respondent failed to timely file certified true copies of the documents entered in his notarial register; falsified Nestor's Absolute Deed of Sale dated May 24, 2011; falsified and notarized two deeds of sale in favor of Esturco and his own son, Venus; notarized instruments not in the presence of Nestor; and filed false certified true copies of the documents entered in his notarial register.

For his part, respondent averred that: (a) the Confirmation of Deed of Sale of Land was signed by the parties sometime in June 2013 but was actually notarized and recorded after the approval of his commission on August 28, 2013; (b) the parties to the notarized documents were duly apprised that he was waiting for the renewal of his commission; (c) he did not falsify any documents since Nestor freely and voluntarily signed the same at his office; and (d) the contract was not immoral, and he has not committed any malpractice or gross misconduct in the exercise of his profession.

The Investigating Commissioner found that respondent: (a) notarized documents with an expired notarial commission; (b) failed to submit to the Clerk of Court the certified true copies of the documents entered in his notarial register together with their duplicate original; (c) assigned the same notarial details to different documents; and (d) notarized documents in favor of his son, Venus, who was privy thereto. The Investigating Commissioner further pointed out that respondent was already disqualified from reappointment as notary public for a period of two years in a June 17, 2016 Resolution of the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, for violation of the same acts complained of in the instant administrative case. As to the charge of immorality, the Investigating Commissioner found insufficient evidence to prove the same.

• Notarization Without Commission: Complainants alleged that respondent notarized an Authorization on March 18, 2011 and a Confirmation of Deed of Sale of Land in June 2013, both of which were done when he had no valid notarial commission, having been commissioned only for specific periods that did not cover those dates.
• Failure to File Notarial Records: Complainants averred that respondent failed to timely file certified true copies of the documents entered in his notarial register, and even filed false certified true copies of the documents entered in his notarial register.
• Falsification of Documents: Complainants alleged that respondent falsified Nestor's Absolute Deed of Sale dated May 24, 2011, and falsified and notarized two deeds of sale in favor of Esturco and his own son, Venus.
• Notarization Without Presence of Parties: Complainants alleged that respondent notarized instruments not in the presence of Nestor.
• Immorality: Complainants charged respondent with immorality in connection with the notarized documents.

• Timing of Notarization: Respondent averred that the Confirmation of Deed of Sale of Land was signed by the parties sometime in June 2013 but was actually notarized and recorded after the approval of his commission on August 28, 2013.
• Disclosure to Parties: Respondent claimed that the parties to the notarized documents were duly apprised that he was waiting for the renewal of his commission.
• No Falsification: Respondent denied falsifying any documents, asserting that Nestor freely and voluntarily signed the same at his office.
• No Immorality or Malpractice: Respondent contended that the contract was not immoral, and that he has not committed any malpractice or gross misconduct in the exercise of his profession.

• Administrative Liability: Whether respondent should be administratively sanctioned for the acts complained of, specifically for violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice, the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyer's Oath.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. Respondent was administratively liable for notarizing documents without a valid commission, failing to comply with the recording and submission requirements of the Notarial Rules, assigning the same notarial details to different documents, and notarizing documents in favor of his son who was disqualified as a principal. The charge of immorality was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.

• Administrative Liability: The Court emphasized that 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. Thus, a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his notarial duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined.

The Court found that respondent notarized an Authorization on March 18, 2011 and a Confirmation of Deed of Sale of Land in June 2013, both clearly done when he was not qualified or authorized to do so. The Investigating Commissioner observed that the Confirmation of Deed of Sale of Land was received by the Office of the Registry of Deeds of Zamboanga del Norte on June 19, 2013 and annotated as Entry No. 9512 on the same date at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-76725. The document was the basis for the cancellation of the title and issuance of a new one to the buyer, and was submitted to the Registry of Deeds on June 19, 2013, hence it was notarized on or before June 19, 2013, or during the time respondent had no valid notarial commission.

The Court cited Nunga vs. Atty. Viray, holding that 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 such commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, more specifically the Notarial Law. By making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

The Court also found that respondent failed to observe the obligations imposed under Rule VI of the Notarial Rules. The Clerk of Court certified that as of March 11, 2014, respondent had not submitted copies of any documents which he notarized from August 28, 2013 until December 31, 2014, contrary to Section 2(h), Rule VI. Moreover, when respondent eventually submitted his notarial documents to the Clerk of Court sometime in March 2015, it was discovered that the same notarial details were assigned by respondent to different documents in violation of Section 2(e) and Section 2(h), Rule VI. The Court enumerated several instances where the same notarial registry numbers were assigned to different documents, including a Special Power of Attorney dated December 13, 2011 and an Absolute Deed of Sale dated January 3, 2012 both bearing Doc. No. 85, Page No. 22, Book No. VI.

The Court further found that respondent notarized two deeds of sale in favor of his son, Venus, who was privy thereto, in violation of Section 3(c), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules, which states that a notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he "is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree." Given the express disqualification of the Notarial Rules, it was incumbent upon respondent to have acted with prudence and should have refused notarizing the said documents.

As to the charge of immorality, the Court stressed that the burden of proof rests on the complainants, and they must establish the case against respondent by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof, disclosing a case that is free from doubt as to compel the exercise by the Court of its disciplinary power. The evidence presented by the complainants was insufficient to prove their allegation; thus, respondent could not be held liable on this charge.

Anent the penalty, the Court modified the IBP's recommendation of disbarment, finding that the penalties of permanent disqualification from being commissioned as notary public and suspension from the practice of law for two years were proper, in line with existing jurisprudence and considering the circumstances and the extent of respondent's willful malfeasance.

• Notarization as a Public Interest Function — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act, but one invested with substantive public interest. It converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarized document is, by law, 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 notarial duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined.

• Notarial Act Without Commission — Only those who are duly commissioned may act and serve as notaries public. Commission either means the grant of authority to perform notarial acts or the written evidence of authority. Without a commission, a lawyer is unauthorized to perform any of the notarial acts. 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, as this constitutes a violation of the lawyer's oath to obey the laws and a deliberate falsehood proscribed by Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

• Disqualification of Notary Public — Under Section 3(c), Rule IV of the Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree. A notary public who notarizes documents in favor of a disqualified relative violates this express disqualification.

• Burden of Proof in Administrative Cases — The burden of proof rests on the complainants in administrative cases against lawyers, and they must establish the case against respondent by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof, disclosing a case that is free from doubt as to compel the exercise by the Court of its disciplinary power.

• "It is well to stress that '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. Thus, a notarized document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of his notarial duties; otherwise, the public's confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be undermined.'" — This passage articulates the foundational principle underlying the Court's ruling on the importance of notarial duties and the standard of care required of notaries public.

• "It is settled that by performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court a lawyer violates not only his oath to obey the laws, particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice, but also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which proscribes all lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession at all times." — This states the legal basis for holding a lawyer administratively liable for notarizing documents without a valid commission.

• "As a final note, it must be emphasized that membership in the legal profession is a privilege burdened with conditions. A lawyer is required to observe the law and be mindful of his or her actions whether acting in a public or private capacity. Any transgression of this duty on his part would not only diminish his reputation as a lawyer but would also erode the public's faith in the legal profession as a whole." — This passage underscores the Court's rationale for imposing disciplinary sanctions on lawyers who fail to meet the exacting standards of the legal profession.

• Nunga vs. Atty. Viray, 366 Phil. 155 (1999) — Controlling precedent holding that a lawyer who notarizes a document without a valid commission may be subjected to disciplinary action, as this violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws and constitutes deliberate falsehood proscribed by Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Triol vs. Agcaoili, Jr., G.R. No. 12011, June 26, 2018, 868 SCRA 175 — Cited for the principle 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.
• Vda. de Miller vs. Miranda, 772 Phil. 449 (2015) — Cited in support of the principle that notarization converts a private document into a public document entitled to full faith and credit.
• Sappayani vs. Gasmen, 768 Phil. 1 (2015) — Cited for the rule that the burden of proof in administrative cases rests on the complainants, who must establish the case by clear, convincing and satisfactory proof.
• Spouses Gacuya vs. Solbita, 782 Phil. 253 (2016) — Cited as jurisprudence supporting the penalties of permanent disqualification from being commissioned as notary public and suspension from the practice of law.
• Tan vs. Gonzales, 557 Phil. 496 (2007) — Cited as jurisprudence supporting the penalties imposed for notarial violations.
• Zoreta vs. Simpliciano, 485 Phil. 395 (2004) — Cited as jurisprudence supporting the penalties imposed for notarial violations.
• Nulada vs. Paulma, 784 Phil. 309 (2016) — Cited for the principle that membership in the legal profession is a privilege burdened with conditions and that lawyers must observe the law in public or private capacity.

• Section 2(e), Rule VI, Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires that the notary public give to each instrument or document executed, sworn to, or acknowledged before him a number corresponding to the one in his register, and state on the instrument or document the page/s of his register on which the same is recorded, with no blank line left between entries. Respondent violated this provision by assigning the same notarial details to different documents.
• Section 2(h), Rule VI, Rules on Notarial Practice — Requires that a certified copy of each month's entries and a duplicate original copy of any instrument acknowledged before the notary public shall, within the first ten days of the month following, be forwarded to the Clerk of Court. Respondent violated this provision by failing to submit copies of documents he notarized and by assigning the same notarial details to different documents.
• Section 3(c), Rule IV, Rules on Notarial Practice — Disqualifies a notary public from performing a notarial act if he is a spouse, common-law partner, ancestor, descendant, or relative by affinity or consanguinity of the principal within the fourth civil degree. Respondent violated this provision by notarizing deeds of sale in favor of his son.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Respondent violated this rule by performing notarial acts without a valid commission.
• Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — Directs lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession at all times. Respondent violated this canon through his notarial misconduct.

Hernando, Inting, and Delos Santos, JJ., concurred. Baltazar-Padilla, J., was on leave.