Manzano vs. Soriano

A lawyer who misappropriates client funds held in trust and repeatedly performs notarial acts without the required commission, demonstrating a pattern of deceit and an absence of remorse, warrants disbarment from the practice of law.

Complainant Ederlinda K. Manzano operated a construction supply and hardware business in Nabua, Camarines Sur, and engaged respondent Atty. Santiago C. Soriano's legal services to pursue collection cases against individuals dealing with her business. As part of their arrangement, respondent was given free use of office space in the Manzano Complex building. The disciplinary proceeding arose from a verified disbarment complaint filed with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, docketed as CBD Case No. 06-1702, charging respondent with dishonesty (misappropriation) and misrepresentation and/or usurping the authority of a notary public.

Complainant Ederlinda K. Manzano engaged the legal services of respondent Atty. Santiago C. Soriano to commence and pursue collection cases against individuals dealing with her construction supply and hardware business in Nabua, Camarines Sur. As part of their arrangement, respondent was allowed the free use of an office space in the Manzano Complex building. After some time, complainant noticed that not a single successful collection had been made, although respondent continually asked for money to cover incidental expenses.

Complainant later discovered that respondent had convinced one of her debtors, Abelino G. Barela, to sell to him a piece of land and the house standing on it for PhP 65,000. The condition of the sale was that, out of the proceeds, respondent should deliver PhP 50,000 personally to complainant to cover Barela's indebtedness. The PhP 50,000 was never turned over to complainant. In a bid to conceal his fraudulent act, respondent prepared a deed of sale dated August 27, 1996 making it appear that he acquired the property from Barela's mother, Eusebia, for PhP 10,000. On its face, the deed identified respondent as both the buyer and the notarizing officer, although he was without a notarial commission at that time.

Upon discovering these developments, complainant severed her attorney-client relationship with respondent and evicted him from his office space at the Manzano Complex. She and Barela subsequently charged respondent with estafa, which led to the filing of an amended information for that crime with the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37 in Iriga City. Complainant also discovered that respondent had been acting as a notary public for the province of Camarines Sur without the necessary notarial commission, as confirmed by a certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of Camarines Sur indicating that respondent was commissioned only in 1997 and 1998.

Respondent, in his answer, entered a general denial of the inculpatory allegations and claimed that the administrative case was complainant's retaliation for his having charged her and her husband and son with grave coercion. He failed to appear at the mandatory conference despite due notice and did not file a position paper despite being granted several extensions with warning, prompting the IBP CBD to declare him as having waived his right to participate in the proceedings. The IBP's records further revealed that respondent had been the subject of a prior administrative complaint, CBD Case No. 05-1514, lodged by Andrea Balce Celaje, in which the Investigating Commissioner found him liable for misapplying the money of his client. He had also failed to pay his IBP membership dues since 2003.

• Misappropriation: Complainant charged respondent with dishonesty for misappropriating the PhP 50,000 that he was supposed to remit to her from Barela's property sale proceeds, which he instead kept for his own benefit without informing her.
• Unauthorized Notarization: Complainant alleged that respondent had been acting as a notary public for the province of Camarines Sur without the necessary notarial commission.
• Misrepresentation: Complainant charged respondent with misrepresentation and/or usurping the authority of a notary public.

• General Denial: Respondent entered a general denial of the inculpatory allegations in the complaint.
• Retaliation: Respondent alleged that the filing of the administrative case was complainant's way of getting back at him for his having charged her and her husband and son with grave coercion.
• Focus on Estafa Dismissal: Respondent focused his defense more on the dismissal of the estafa case that complainant and Barela had earlier filed against him, rather than substantively addressing the disbarment charges.

• Misappropriation of Client Funds: Whether respondent is guilty of misappropriating funds belonging to his client in violation of Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Unauthorized Notarial Practice: Whether respondent is guilty of malpractice for performing notarial acts without the necessary commission.
• Appropriate Penalty: Whether disbarment, rather than indefinite suspension as recommended by the IBP Board of Governors, is the appropriate penalty.

• Misappropriation of Client Funds: Yes. Respondent perverted his position as complainant's lawyer by convincing debtor Barela to sell property to him with the understanding that he would remit PhP 50,000 to complainant, but instead misappropriated the amount for his own benefit, violating Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Unauthorized Notarial Practice: Yes. Respondent held himself out and acted as notary public for the province of Camarines Sur for calendar years 1996, 2005, 2006, and 2007 without the proper commission, constituting malpractice and potentially falsification of public documents.
• Appropriate Penalty: Disbarment. Given the gravity of the offenses, respondent's prior administrative record for misapplying client funds, his lack of remorse, and the likelihood that his continued practice would subvert justice and bring dishonor to the bar, disbarment was the fitting sanction.

• Misappropriation of Client Funds: Canon 16 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer shall hold in trust all money and property collected or received for or from the client. Respondent, as complainant's lawyer, used his position and legal expertise to convince debtor Barela to sell and transfer his house for PhP 65,000 with the understanding that respondent would remit PhP 50,000 to complainant to offset Barela's debt. Instead of remitting the amount, respondent misappropriated it for his own benefit without informing complainant, effectively duping both complainant and Barela. He then attempted to cover up the fraud by preparing a sham deed of sale dated August 27, 1996, making it appear that he acquired the property from Barela's mother for PhP 10,000, and notarizing the document himself despite lacking a notarial commission. These acts constituted dishonesty, grave misconduct, and a gross disregard of the Code of Professional Responsibility. The commission of unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct necessarily involves moral turpitude and amounts to a violation of the attorney's oath, which is a ground for suspension or disbarment under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.

• Unauthorized Notarial Practice: Notarization is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity and entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. The evidence showed that respondent held himself out and acted as notary public for the province of Camarines Sur for calendar years 1996, 2005, 2006, and 2007, notarizing several documents including an affidavit of loss, affidavit of heirship, joint affidavit, affidavit of supplemental information, and affidavit of guardianship, without the proper commission. The act of notarizing without the necessary commission constitutes not only malpractice but also the crime of falsification of public documents. By making it appear that he was duly commissioned when he was not, respondent indulged in deliberate falsehood, violating his lawyer's oath to obey the laws, particularly the Notarial Law. The most egregious instance occurred in 1996, when respondent notarized a sham conveying deed in which he himself was the transferee.

• Appropriate Penalty: While the IBP Board of Governors recommended indefinite suspension, the Court found the Investigating Commissioner's recommendation of disbarment more appropriate. Disbarment is imposed only in clear cases of misconduct that seriously affect the standing and character of the lawyer as an officer of the court and member of the bar. Respondent had become a liability to the legal profession: he misappropriated client funds, notarized a sham deed of sale in which he was named as vendee, repeatedly performed notarial acts without commission over a four-year stretch or longer, had a prior administrative record for misapplying client funds in CBD Case No. 05-1514, and failed to pay IBP dues since 2003. The Court detected no slightest indication of remorse; respondent hardly defended himself in the disbarment proceedings before the IBP, displaying what the Court perceived as hubris. His continued practice would likely subvert justice, bring further dishonor to the bar, and lessen the respect and trust reposed by the public in the integrity of the legal profession.

• Trust Account Obligation (Canon 16, CPR) — A lawyer shall hold in trust all money and property collected or received for or from the client. The Court applied this canon to find respondent guilty of misappropriation for failing to remit the PhP 50,000 he received from Barela's property sale, which he was obligated to turn over to his client as part of the arrangement he himself brokered.

• Notarization as Substantive Public Interest — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity and entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. A lawyer who notarizes without the necessary commission commits malpractice and potentially falsification of public documents, and violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, particularly 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.

• Disbarment as Ultimate Penalty — Only in a clear case of misconduct that seriously affects the standing and character of the lawyer as officer of the court and as a member of the bar will disbarment be imposed as a penalty. The Court applied this principle in finding that respondent's pattern of deceit, prior administrative record for misapplying client funds, lack of remorse, and the likelihood that his continued practice would subvert justice and bring dishonor to the bar warranted the ultimate penalty rather than indefinite suspension.

• Lawyer's Duty of Honesty and Integrity (Rule 1.01, CPR) — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Immoral or deceitful conduct necessarily involves moral turpitude, and the commission of any of these unlawful acts, which also amounts to a violation of the attorney's oath, is a ground for suspension or disbarment under Rule 138, Section 27 of the Rules of Court.

• "The law profession is not a trade or a business venture." — This opening statement frames the Court's approach to disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the elevated standards expected of lawyers and the Court's constitutional mandate to regulate the legal profession and discipline erring members.

• "xxx [N]otarization 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, quoted from Zoreta vs. Simpliciano, articulates the doctrinal importance of notarization and the Court's strict stance against unauthorized notarial practice, frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence on notarial violations.

• "A lawyer, by taking the lawyer's oath, becomes a guardian of the law and an indispensable instrument for the orderly administration of justice. As such, he is expected to have a mega-dose of social conscience with the end in view of making a meaningful difference and with a little less of self-interest." — This passage defines the ethical ideal expected of lawyers and underscores why respondent's conduct fell far short of professional standards, supporting the imposition of disbarment.

• Zoreta vs. Simpliciano, A.C. No. 6492, November 18, 2004 — Controlling precedent on unauthorized notarial practice. The Court relied on this case's articulation that notarization is invested with substantive public interest and that performing notarial acts without the required commission constitutes not only malpractice but also the crime of falsification of public documents and a violation of the lawyer's oath.

• People vs. Daban, No. L-31429, January 31, 1972 — Cited for the foundational principle that the law profession is not a trade or a business venture, framing the elevated standards governing the practice of law.

• Pangasinan Electric Cooperative I (PANELCO I) vs. Montemayor, A.C. No. 5739, September 12, 2007 — Cited for the principle that disbarment is imposed only in clear cases of misconduct seriously affecting the standing and character of the lawyer, and that a lawyer whose continued practice would likely subvert justice and bring dishonor to the bar warrants the ultimate penalty.

• Bellosillo vs. Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, G.R. No. 126980, March 31, 2006 — Cited alongside PANELCO I for the standard governing the imposition of disbarment as a penalty.

• Canon 16, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that "a lawyer shall hold in trust all money and property collected or received for or from the client." Applied to hold respondent liable for misappropriating the PhP 50,000 he received from Barela's property sale that should have been remitted to complainant.

• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Applied to characterize respondent's acts of misappropriation and unauthorized notarization as dishonest and deceitful conduct involving moral turpitude.

• Rule 138, Section 27, Rules of Court — Provides grounds for suspension or disbarment of lawyers, including the commission of unlawful or deceitful conduct amounting to a violation of the attorney's oath. Applied as the procedural basis for the disbarment penalty.

• Notarial Law — Violated by respondent's repeated performance of notarial acts without the necessary commission for calendar years 1996, 2005, 2006, and 2007, as confirmed by certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of Camarines Sur.

Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Tinga, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro, and Peralta, JJ. concurred. Chico-Nazario and Brion, JJ. were on leave.