Manzano vs. Rivera

A lawyer who notarizes a document without a valid notarial commission and fails to participate in administrative proceedings against him is guilty of gross misconduct, warranting suspension from the practice of law and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.

Atty. Antonio B. Manzano represented the plaintiffs in an accion publiciana case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ballesteros, Cagayan, while Atty. Carlos P. Rivera served as counsel for the defendants. The administrative dispute between the two lawyers stems from the notarization of the defendants' Answer in that civil case, where the integrity of the notarial process and the professional obligations of attorneys under the Notarial Law and the Code of Professional Responsibility are at issue.

On August 19, 2014, Atty. Antonio B. Manzano filed a complaint for accion publiciana on behalf of his clients against Pedro Pando, Rene Bloza, Arcelie Bayaca, and Marlon Urata before the RTC, Branch 33 of Ballesteros, Cagayan, docketed as Civil Case No. 33-467-2014. The Sheriff subsequently reported that he failed to personally serve the summons on Bayaca, who was abroad, and Urata, who was in Manila.

On October 14, 2014, the defendants, through their counsel, Atty. Carlos P. Rivera, filed their Answer before the RTC. The Answer bore the signatures of all four defendants, including Bayaca and Urata, despite the Sheriff's prior inability to locate them. Atty. Rivera prepared and notarized the Answer on the same date in his law office in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. However, a Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC of Tuguegarao City confirmed that Atty. Rivera was not commissioned as a notary public for and in the Province of Cagayan at the time he notarized the Answer.

Suspecting that the signatures of Bayaca and Urata were forged, Atty. Manzano advised his clients to file a criminal complaint for Falsification of Public Documents and Use of Falsified Documents against Atty. Rivera, Pando, and Bloza before the City Prosecution Office of Tuguegarao City. In his Counter-Affidavit, Atty. Rivera admitted preparing the Answer but denied knowing the signatures were forged. He claimed that only Pando and Bloza personally appeared before him to sign the Verification, and they assured him they would bring the Answer to Bayaca and Urata for their signatures. He also admitted that his notarial commission had already expired in 2014. On June 30, 2015, the City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict them for Falsification of Public Documents under the Revised Penal Code.

Thereafter, Atty. Manzano filed the instant Petition for disbarment against Atty. Rivera for Malpractice, Dishonesty, and Falsification of Public Document. During the administrative proceedings before the IBP, Atty. Rivera requested an extension to file his Answer but ultimately failed to do so. He also failed to appear at the scheduled mandatory conference and did not submit a Position Paper, leaving only the complainant to present his position.

• Unauthorized Notarization: Petitioner maintained that respondent notarized the Answer and its Verification without a valid notarial commission, as evidenced by the Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court.
• Lack of Personal Appearance: Petitioner argued that respondent admitted in his Counter-Affidavit that he notarized the Verification without the personal presence of Bayaca and Urata, undermining the integrity of the notarial process.

• Denial of Forgery Knowledge: Respondent denied knowing that the signatures of Bayaca and Urata were forged, professing that Pando and Bloza merely assured him they would secure the signatures so the Answer could be filed on time.
• Admission of Expired Commission: Respondent admitted that his notarial commission had expired in 2014 and pleaded with the City Prosecutor to spare him from the criminal complaint, suggesting an administrative complaint before the IBP instead.

• Administrative Liability: Whether respondent is administratively liable for notarizing a pleading without a valid notarial commission and for ignoring the directives of the IBP.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. Respondent is guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Canon 7, and Rules 1.01 and 7.03 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the Lawyer's Oath, warranting suspension and perpetual disqualification from notarial commission.

• Administrative Liability: Notarization is invested with substantive public interest and is not a mere routinary act; only those qualified and commissioned may perform notarial acts. The Certification from the RTC proved that respondent lacked a notarial commission in 2014. By making it appear he was a duly commissioned notary public, respondent blatantly disregarded his Lawyer's Oath to obey the laws and do no falsehood, violating Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the CPR. Furthermore, his failure to file an Answer or Position Paper and to attend the mandatory conference demonstrated a deliberate defiance of the lawful orders of the IBP. The Court found the recommended penalty of three years suspension and perpetual disqualification from being a notary public to be just and proper, applying the precedent in Villaflores-Puza vs. Arellano.

• Nature of Notarization — Notarization is not a mere 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 converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible as evidence without further proof of its authenticity. The Court applied this doctrine to hold respondent liable for notarizing a pleading without a valid commission.
• Good Moral Character as a Continuing Condition — The possession of good moral character is a continuing condition to preserve membership in the Bar in good standing. Lawyers are expected to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession at all times. The Court relied on this principle to emphasize that respondent's misconduct lessened the public's trust in the fidelity, honesty, and integrity of the legal profession.

• "Notarization converts a private document into a public document and makes such document admissible as evidence without further proof of its authenticity." — This passage defines the legal effect of notarization and explains why strict compliance with notarial rules is demanded of lawyers.
• "We have repeatedly emphasized that notarization is not a mere 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 is the canonical formulation of the Court's stance on notarization, frequently cited in legal ethics jurisprudence to underscore the gravity of unauthorized notarial acts.

• Villaflores-Puza vs. Arellano, 811 Phil. 313 (2017) — Controlling precedent. The Court applied the same penalty of three years suspension from the practice of law and perpetual disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public, as the facts were on all fours: the respondent there also notarized documents without a commission and ignored the administrative proceedings.
• Advincula vs. Macabata, 546 Phil. 431 (2007) — Cited for the doctrine that good moral character is a continuing condition to preserve membership in the Bar in good standing.

• Section 11, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) — Provides that only a person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. The Court applied this to establish that respondent's notarization was unauthorized.
• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — States that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The Court found respondent's unauthorized notarization to be a transgression of this rule.
• Rule 7.03, Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — Mandates that a lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law. The Court held that respondent's actions discredited the legal profession.
• The Lawyer's Oath (Rules of Court, Form 28) — Requires lawyers to obey the laws and the legal orders of duly constituted authorities and to do no falsehood. The Court found respondent violated this oath both by his unauthorized notarization and his defiance of the IBP's orders.

Peralta, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Gesmundo, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, Lopez, Delos Santos, Gaerlan, and Rosario, JJ.