Maniquiz vs. Atty. Emelo

A lawyer who notarizes a document without a valid notarial commission and without the personal appearance of all parties is guilty of deceit, gross misconduct, and dishonesty under Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.

Ma. Vilma Maniquiz filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Danilo C. Emelo arising from his notarization of a Deed of Absolute Sale over a parcel of land purportedly executed by her sister-in-law, Mergelita Sindanom Maniquiz, as vendor, in favor of spouses Leonardo and Lucena Torres as vendees. The complaint charged Emelo with violating his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility for notarizing a fictitious document bearing a falsified signature and for acting as a notary public without the required commission for Cavite.

Ma. Vilma Maniquiz alleged that Atty. Danilo C. Emelo violated his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he willfully notarized a fictitious Deed of Absolute Sale containing a falsified signature of her sister-in-law, Mergelita Sindanom Maniquiz, as vendor of a parcel of land in favor of spouses Leonardo and Lucena Torres as vendees. Emelo notarized the document without being authorized to act as a notary public for Cavite.

On January 11, 2011, a person connected with the Spouses Torres gave Maniquiz a copy of the deed of sale. When she showed it to Mergelita, the latter was surprised and denied that she ever signed the document. They noticed that the document did not show the names of the witnesses but only their signatures, and that the purported vendees failed to present any government-issued identification documents. Emelo's notarial commission and roll of attorneys number were likewise not indicated in the document. Maniquiz went to Emelo's residence to confirm whether he indeed notarized the deed of sale. Emelo told them that he notarized the document based on a photocopy of Mergelita's passport, which was shown to him by his kumpare, Leonardo Torres, who personally appeared before him at that time.

Emelo, for his part, denied the accusations. In his belatedly filed Comment on July 26, 2012, he argued that he was not remiss in his obligations as a notary public since the parties actually appeared before him. He attested that a woman introduced herself to him as Mergelita Maniquiz, as evidenced by her passport. As regards the absence of a notarial commission, he explained that for the year 2007, he could not retrieve orders of his commission as they may have been destroyed when his residential house was inundated by typhoon Milenyo on September 28, 2006. He admitted notarizing the document without a notarial commission and begged for clemency, kind consideration, and forgiveness.

• Falsified Document: Complainant alleged that respondent willfully notarized a fictitious Deed of Absolute Sale containing a falsified signature of Mergelita Sindanom Maniquiz as vendor, in violation of his lawyer's oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Absence of Notarial Commission: Complainant pointed out that respondent notarized the document without being authorized to act as a notary public for Cavite, and that his notarial commission and roll of attorneys number were not indicated in the document.
• Procedural Irregularities: Complainant noted that the document did not show the names of the witnesses but only their signatures, and that the purported vendees failed to present any government-issued identification documents.

• Personal Appearance of Parties: Respondent argued that he was not remiss in his obligations as a notary public when he notarized the deed of absolute sale since the parties actually appeared before him, and that a woman introduced herself to him as Mergelita Maniquiz, as evidenced by her passport.
• Loss of Commission Records: Respondent explained that for the year 2007, he could not retrieve orders of his commission as they may have been destroyed when his residential house was inundated by typhoon Milenyo on September 28, 2006.
• Admission and Plea for Clemency: Respondent admitted notarizing the document without a notarial commission and begged for clemency, kind consideration, and forgiveness.

• Validity of Notarization: Whether respondent is administratively liable for notarizing a fictitious Deed of Absolute Sale without the personal appearance of all parties.
• Notarial Commission: Whether respondent is administratively liable for performing a notarial act without a valid notarial commission.
• Appropriate Penalty: Whether the penalty recommended by the IBP is appropriate or should be modified.

• Validity of Notarization: Yes. Respondent is guilty of deceit, gross misconduct, and dishonesty for notarizing the deed of sale without all parties personally appearing before him, in violation of Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR.
• Notarial Commission: Yes. Performing a notarial act without a commission violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws and constitutes deliberate falsehood proscribed by the same oath.
• Appropriate Penalty: Yes, with modification. The Court imposed suspension from the practice of law for two years, revocation of notarial commission, and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, modifying the IBP's recommendation of only two years' disqualification.

• Validity of Notarization: Notarization ensures the public that the provisions in a document express the true agreement between the parties. The notary public assures that the parties appearing in the document are the same parties who executed it. This cannot be achieved if the parties are not physically present before the notary public acknowledging the document, since it is highly possible that terms favorable to the vendors might not be included in the document submitted by the vendee for notarization, and the possibility of forgery becomes real. A notary public must discharge his powers and duties with accuracy and fidelity, inform himself of the facts he certifies to, and not take part in illegal transactions. Emelo notarized the deed based only on a photocopy of the vendor's passport presented by the vendee, without requiring the vendor's personal appearance. This fell short of the demands required of him as a faithful member of the bar and constituted a violation of his duty to observe fairness and honesty in all his dealings.

• Notarial Commission: 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, the lawyer indulges in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath similarly proscribes. Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Emelo admitted notarizing the document without a notarial commission. His explanation that his commission records may have been destroyed by typhoon Milenyo did not excuse the violation.

• Appropriate Penalty: These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the CPR, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Membership in the legal profession is a privilege bestowed upon individuals of good moral character, and lawyers must comport themselves with honesty and integrity beyond reproach. In De Jesus vs. Atty. Sanchez-Malit, a lawyer who notarized twenty-two public documents without the signatures of the parties was suspended for one year and perpetually disqualified from being a notary public. In Anudon vs. Atty. Cefra, a lawyer who notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale without requiring the presence of the affiants was suspended for two years and perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public. Applying these precedents, the Court found the two-year suspension warranted, but modified the IBP's recommended two-year disqualification from notarial commission to perpetual disqualification, consistent with the cited jurisprudence.

• Notarization as a 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. The notary public assures that the parties appearing in the document are indeed the same parties who executed it. This cannot be achieved if the parties are not physically present before the notary public. The Court applied this doctrine to hold Emelo liable for notarizing the deed of sale without the vendor's personal appearance.

• Notarial Act Without Commission as Deliberate Falsehood — Performing a notarial act without a valid commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, specifically the Notarial Law. By making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, the lawyer indulges in deliberate falsehood proscribed by the lawyer's oath. The Court found Emelo administratively liable for notarizing the document without a notarial commission for Cavite.

• Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR — Canon 1 mandates that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Rule 1.01 provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Unlawful conduct does not necessarily imply criminality, though the concept is broad enough to include it. Dishonesty means the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, defraud, or betray; deceitful conduct means the proclivity for fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation. The Court applied these provisions to find Emelo guilty of deceit, gross misconduct, and dishonesty.

• "Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public." — This passage articulates the doctrinal foundation for holding lawyers to a high standard in notarial practice and explains why performing notarial acts without a commission is a serious violation.

• "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." — This states the rule that unauthorized notarization is a ground for administrative liability, linking the violation to the lawyer's oath and the Notarial Law.

• "This obviously cannot be achieved if the parties are not physically present before the notary public acknowledging the document since it is highly possible that the terms and conditions favorable to the vendors might not be included in the document submitted by the vendee for notarization. Worse, the possibility of forgery becomes real." — This passage defines the rationale for the personal-appearance requirement in notarial practice and explains the risks of forgery and unfairness when the requirement is disregarded.

• De Jesus vs. Atty. Sanchez-Malit, 738 Phil. 480 (2014) — Controlling precedent on penalty. The respondent-lawyer notarized twenty-two public documents without the signatures of the parties and was suspended from the practice of law for one year and perpetually disqualified from being a notary public. The Court relied on this case to justify the perpetual disqualification imposed on Emelo.

• Anudon vs. Atty. Cefra, 753 Phil. 421 (2015) — Controlling precedent on penalty for notarization without personal appearance. The respondent-lawyer notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale without requiring the presence of the affiants and was suspended for two years and perpetually disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public. The Court found Emelo's case squarely analogous and applied the same penalty.

• Sultan vs. Atty. Macabanding, 745 Phil. 12 (2014) — Cited for the principle that a notary public must discharge his powers and duties with accuracy and fidelity and must not take part in illegal transactions.

• Almazan, Sr. vs. Atty. Suerte-Felipe, 743 Phil. 131 (2014) — Cited for the principle that the requirements for the issuance of a notarial commission are treated with formality more than casual, and that notarization is invested with substantive public interest.

• Jimenez vs. Atty. Francisco, 749 Phil. 551 (2014) — Cited for the definitions of dishonesty and deceitful conduct under Rule 1.01 of the CPR.

• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall uphold the Constitution, obey the laws of the land, and promote respect for law and legal processes. Applied to hold Emelo liable for violating the Notarial Law by performing a notarial act without a commission.

• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied to characterize Emelo's notarization of a fictitious deed without personal appearance of all parties and without a commission as deceit, gross misconduct, and dishonesty.

• Notarial Law — The rules governing notarial practice in the Philippines, which require a valid commission to perform notarial acts. Emelo's notarization without a commission for Cavite was held to be a violation of this law and of his lawyer's oath.

• Lawyer's Oath — Requires lawyers to obey the laws, do no falsehood, and conduct themselves according to the best of their knowledge and discretion. Emelo's actions were found to violate this oath by engaging in deliberate falsehood and unlawful conduct.

Sereno, C.J., Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Martires, Tijam, Reyes, Jr., and Gesmundo, JJ., concurred. Carpio, J., was on official leave. Jardeleza, J., was on wellness leave.