Malapit vs. Watin

A notary public is disqualified from notarizing an instrument if he or his immediate family will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest, cash, property, or other consideration from the notarial act. A lawyer who notarizes such a document and later represents a party in litigation challenging that same document violates both the notarial rules and the prohibition against representing conflicting interests.

Complainant Edna Tan Malapit owned a parcel of land in Digos City. In 1994, she authorized Petronila Austria to find buyers for portions of the land. In 1996, they went to respondent Atty. Rogelio M. Watin to prepare and notarize an SPA authorizing Petronila to sell the property. Complainant alleged the draft SPA contained unauthorized provisions allowing the transfer of rights, leading her to refuse to sign it. Despite this, the SPA was notarized and later bore what complainant claimed was a forged signature. Using this SPA, Petronila executed several "Transfers of Rights" to third parties, including two of Atty. Watin's sons. When complainant discovered settlements on her land in 2002, she filed criminal and civil cases against Petronila. Atty. Watin then entered his appearance as Petronila's counsel in those cases.

• Nature of the Action: An administrative complaint for disbarment alleging unethical conduct, specifically violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).
• The 1996 SPA and Alleged Forgery: In June 1996, complainant Edna Tan Malapit sought Atty. Watin's services to prepare an SPA for Petronila Austria to sell complainant's land. Complainant alleged the draft contained unauthorized clauses authorizing the transfer of rights, leading her to refuse to sign. Despite her refusal, the SPA was notarized and later bore her purported signature. The Office of the City Prosecutor found probable cause for forgery and estafa against Petronila.
• Subsequent Transfers and Indirect Benefit: Using the 1996 SPA, Petronila executed "Transfers of Rights" over portions of complainant's land. Two of these transfers, dated December 28, 2000, conveyed property to Atty. Watin's sons, Ronald and Richard Watin, for stated considerations.
• Litigation and Conflict of Interest: In 2002, complainant filed criminal and civil cases against Petronila to nullify the SPA and the transfers. Atty. Watin entered his appearance as counsel for Petronila in these cases, where the validity and execution of the SPA he had notarized was a central issue.
• The Ariel Asturia Transfer: Complainant alleged Atty. Watin notarized another Transfer of Rights in 2004 in favor of Ariel Asturia (Petronila's son) while the cases were pending. Atty. Watin denied this, claiming his secretary forged his signature. Ariel Asturia's affidavit corroborated this defense, and a certification from the Clerk of Court showed no file copy of the document.
• Respondent's Defense: Atty. Watin claimed the SPA was validly executed, that complainant's signature was genuine, and that the disbarment case was harassment. He argued the property originally belonged to complainant's husband and that complainant had already received sale proceeds.

• Forgery and Invalid SPA: Petitioner maintained that her signature on the 1996 SPA was forged and that the document was notarized without her consent, rendering it void.
• Indirect Benefit and Notarial Disqualification: Petitioner argued that Atty. Watin violated the 2004 Notarial Rules by notarizing the SPA from which his sons subsequently acquired property rights, constituting an indirect benefit.
• Conflict of Interest: Petitioner contended that Atty. Watin violated ethical rules by representing Petronila in cases directly challenging the validity of the SPA he himself had prepared and notarized.

• Validity of the SPA: Respondent countered that the SPA was valid and enforceable, bearing the genuine signatures of the complainant and her husband, and that no court had annulled it.
• No Indirect Benefit: Respondent argued that the transfers to his sons were separate transactions between private parties and did not constitute a benefit to him from the notarial act.
• No Conflict of Interest: Respondent maintained that his representation of Petronila did not create a conflict because his prior professional engagement with complainant was limited to the preparation and notarization of the SPA.
• Malicious Prosecution: Respondent asserted the administrative case was filed in bad faith to harass him.

• Notarial Disqualification: Whether Atty. Watin violated Section 3(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by notarizing the SPA from which his immediate family received an indirect benefit.
• Conflict of Interest: Whether Atty. Watin violated the conflict-of-interest rule by representing Petronila Austria in cases challenging the validity of the SPA he had notarized for the complainant.
• Liability for the Ariel Asturia Transfer: Whether substantial evidence proved Atty. Watin notarized a Transfer of Rights in favor of Ariel Asturia during the pendency of the related cases.

• Notarial Disqualification: The violation was established. The prohibition under the 2004 Notarial Rules covers not only direct benefits to the notary public but also indirect benefits received by his immediate family. The transfers to Atty. Watin's sons were a direct consequence of the SPA he notarized, constituting a prohibited indirect benefit and a violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the CPR (and its successor provisions in the CPRA).
• Conflict of Interest: The violation was established. A lawyer-client relationship was formed when Atty. Watin prepared and notarized the SPA for the complainant. His subsequent representation of Petronila, the complainant's opposing party in cases where the SPA's validity was the core issue, created a clear conflict of interest prohibited under Canon 15.03 of the CPR and Section 13, Canon III of the CPRA.
• Liability for the Ariel Asturia Transfer: No substantial evidence supported the allegation. The affidavit of Ariel Asturia, an admission against his own interest, detailed that Atty. Watin's secretary forged the notarization. This, coupled with the negative certification from the Clerk of Court, overcame the presumption of regularity of the notarized document.

• Indirect Benefit in Notarial Disqualification — Under Section 3(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public is disqualified from performing a notarial act if he will receive, as a direct or indirect result, any commission, fee, advantage, right, title, interest, cash, property, or other consideration. The Court clarified that this prohibition extends to benefits received by the notary public's immediate family, as a contrary interpretation would render the rule illusory.
• Successive Imposition of Penalties for Notarial and Ethical Violations — When imposing penalties for violations of the Notarial Rules and the CPRA, the penalty of disqualification from reappointment as a notary public should be reckoned to take effect after the service of the suspension from the practice of law. This successive service provides a stronger deterrent and is logical, as a suspended lawyer cannot be commissioned as a notary public anyway.

• "The prohibition under Section 3(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Notarial Rules covers not only direct benefits, but also indirect benefits as a result of the notarial act. It is elementary that what cannot be legally done directly cannot be done indirectly." — This passage establishes the key interpretation that expanded the scope of the notarial disqualification rule.
• "The successive, not simultaneous, service of the penalties of suspension from the practice of law and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public would be more purposeful as this would provide a stronger deterrence commensurate with a notary public's failure to perform his or her mandated duties under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice." — This explains the rationale for the modified penalty structure.

• Siao v. Atup, 875 Phil. 819 (2020) — Cited for the principle that a disbarment proceeding is not the proper forum to adjudicate the forgery of a document; that issue must be resolved in a proper civil or criminal proceeding.
• Civil Service Commission v. Cortes, 734 Phil. 295 (2014) — Cited to support the interpretation that the prohibition against indirect benefits in notarial disqualification is rooted in the principle that what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.
• RODCO Consultancy and Maritime Services Corporation v. Concepcion, 906 Phil. 1 (2021) and Hierro v. Atty. Nava, 868 Phil. 56 (2020) — Cited to define conflict of interest and its ethical prohibition.

• Section 3(b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Applied to disqualify Atty. Watin from notarizing the SPA due to the indirect benefit derived by his immediate family.
• Canon 1, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR) — Applied to find Atty. Watin engaged in dishonest or deceitful conduct by notarizing a document from which his family benefited.
• Canon 15.03 of the CPR and Section 13, Canon III of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA) — Applied to establish the violation of the conflict-of-interest rule.
• Canon VI, Sections 37 and 40 of the CPRA — Applied to determine the proper penalties for multiple serious offenses.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Hernando, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, Kho, Jr., and Singh, JJ., concur. Caguioa, J., on leave. Lazaro-Javier, J., on official business. Inting, J., on official leave.