Menioria vs. Peralta

A notary public who notarizes a document without the personal appearance of the signatory—particularly where the signatory is already deceased—commits a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from future notarial commission; where the lawyer has already been disbarred, the corresponding penalties are recorded for purposes of any future petition to lift disbarment, and a fine may additionally be imposed.

Complainant Loreta Hedocil-Menioria is the lone surviving direct and compulsory heir of the late spouses Gaudioso Hedocil and Romana Andojar-Hedocil. Her brothers, Melecio Hedocil and Artemio Hedocil, died on April 17, 1984 and November 22, 2005, respectively. During their lifetimes, Melecio and Artemio acquired in common a residential property described as Lot No. 6916, covered by TCT No. 130-2014000295, located in Poblacion, Molave, Zamboanga Del Sur. Respondent Atty. Glenn Eric Lumbay Peralta is a lawyer and notary public who served as regular counsel to the wives of Melecio and Artemio.

Complainant Loreta Hedocil-Menioria is the lone surviving direct and compulsory heir of the late spouses Gaudioso Hedocil and Romana Andojar-Hedocil. Her brothers, Melecio Hedocil and Artemio Hedocil, died on April 17, 1984 and November 22, 2005, respectively, as evidenced by their death certificates attached to the complaint. During their lifetimes and while bachelors, Melecio and Artemio acquired in common a residential property described as Lot No. 6916, covered by TCT No. 130-2014000295, located in Poblacion, Molave, Zamboanga Del Sur.

On November 17, 2017, respondent Atty. Glenn Eric Lumbay Peralta notarized a Partition Agreement purportedly signed by Melecio and Artemio—long after both had died. Complainant alleged that respondent performed the notarization without requiring the supposed signatories to present any competent evidence of identification, thereby violating the Rules on Notarial Practice.

In defense, respondent denied administrative liability, raising several arguments. He claimed that the disbarment case was similar to a criminal case previously filed against him for violation of Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code, which had been dismissed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pagadian City. He questioned complainant's personality to file the complaint. He asserted that the wives of Melecio and Artemio had not divulged the fact of their husbands' deaths. He denied that the lawyer's signature in the subject document was his. Finally, he argued that the original copy of the subject document was not presented, violating the best evidence rule. Respondent admitted that he prepared and notarized the subject document but pleaded that he merely trusted the wives of Melecio and Artemio, who were his regular clients.

The IBP Investigating Commissioner found that respondent violated the Rules on Notarial Practice by failing to require the supposed signatories to present competent evidence of identification before notarizing the document. The IC gave no weight to the dismissal of the criminal case, noting the difference in evidentiary thresholds between criminal cases and administrative disciplinary proceedings. The IC also rejected respondent's other assertions, ruling that a certified true copy was sufficient under the best evidence rule, that the disbarment complaint could be filed by any aggrieved party, and that respondent failed to provide evidence that the signature was not his. The IBP Board of Governors adopted and approved the IC's Report and Recommendation on November 19, 2021.

• Violation of Notarial Rules: Complainant alleged that respondent notarized a Partition Agreement dated November 17, 2017 supposedly signed by her deceased brothers Melecio and Artemio, who had died years before the document's execution, and that respondent failed to require the supposed signatories to present any competent evidence of identification, violating the Rules on Notarial Practice.

• Prior Criminal Case Dismissal: Respondent argued that the disbarment case was similar to a criminal case filed against him for violation of Article 171 of the RPC, which had already been dismissed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pagadian City.
• Complainant's Personality to Sue: Respondent questioned complainant's personality or standing to file the disbarment complaint.
• Non-Disclosure of Deaths: Respondent claimed that the wives of Melecio and Artemio did not divulge the fact of their husbands' deaths.
• Forgery of Signature: Respondent denied that the lawyer's signature appearing in the notarization portion of the subject document was his.
• Best Evidence Rule: Respondent argued that the original copy of the subject document was not presented, thereby violating the best evidence rule.
• Good Faith Reliance on Clients: Respondent pleaded that he merely trusted the wives of Melecio and Artemio, who were his regular clients, and should be exculpated on that basis.

• Administrative Liability: Whether respondent should be held administratively liable for notarizing a Partition Agreement purportedly signed by two deceased persons without requiring their personal appearance or competent evidence of identity.
• Evidentiary Threshold: Whether the correct evidentiary threshold in administrative disciplinary proceedings against lawyers is "preponderance of evidence" or "substantial evidence."
• Proper Penalty: Whether the penalties of suspension, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as notary public may still be imposed given that respondent had already been disbarred in a separate 2022 case.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. Respondent was found guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the CPR for notarizing a document without the personal appearance of the signatories, who were already deceased at the time of notarization.
• Evidentiary Threshold: The IBP's reliance on "preponderance of evidence" was corrected; the proper quantum of proof in administrative disciplinary cases against lawyers is substantial evidence—more than a mere scintilla but such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
• Proper Penalty: The penalties of suspension for one year, revocation of notarial commission, and disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for two years could no longer be imposed due to respondent's prior disbarment, but were recorded in his personal file with the OBC for consideration in any future petition to lift disbarment; a fine of PHP 40,000.00 was additionally imposed.

• Administrative Liability: Notarization is not an empty or routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest, converting a private document into a public document entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice prohibits a notary from performing a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization and is not personally known to or identified through competent evidence of identity. Here, respondent admitted preparing and notarizing the subject document, but the signatories—Melecio and Artemio—had long been dead before its execution, making their personal appearance impossible. Respondent's plea that he merely trusted the wives of his regular clients was given scant consideration, as the gravamen lies in the details of his acts, not in personal emotions or incentives. Without the appearance of the person who executed the document, the notary could not verify the genuineness of the signature or ascertain that the document was the party's free act or deed. Noncompliance with Rule IV, Section 2(b) also constitutes a violation of the CPR, specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01 (prohibiting unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct) and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 (prohibiting falsehood or misleading the court). Complainant established respondent's administrative liability by substantial evidence.

• Evidentiary Threshold: The Court corrected the IBP Investigating Commissioner's notion that the evidentiary threshold in administrative disciplinary cases against lawyers is "preponderance of evidence." Citing Reyes vs. Nieva, the Court definitively stated that the quantum of proof required is substantial evidence—more than a mere scintilla but such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This threshold is more in keeping with the sui generis nature of disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, which are neither purely civil nor purely criminal, do not involve a trial of an action or suit, and are primarily concerned with public interest and whether the attorney remains a fit person to practice law.

• Proper Penalty: Case law establishes that a notary public who violates the Notarial Rules must be meted penalties of revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as notary public, and suspension from the practice of law, with durations varying by circumstance. Surveying comparable precedents—Spouses Zialcita vs. Latras (six months' suspension, two years' disqualification), Gaddi vs. Velasco (one year's suspension, two years' disqualification), and Orola vs. Baribar (one year's suspension, two years' disqualification)—the Court deemed it appropriate to impose one year's suspension, revocation of incumbent notarial commission, and two years' disqualification from being commissioned as notary public. However, because respondent had already been disbarred in 2022 in Dela Cruz vs. Peralta, the Court applied the doctrine in Valmonte vs. Quesada, Jr.: once a lawyer is disbarred, no penalty regarding the privilege to practice law can be further imposed, but the corresponding penalty may still be given for the sole purpose of recording it in his personal file with the OBC, to be considered should he later petition to lift his disbarment. Additionally, the Court may impose a fine upon a disbarred lawyer for offenses committed prior to disbarment, as the Court does not lose jurisdiction over such offenses. Accordingly, a fine of PHP 40,000.00 was imposed.

• Substantial Evidence as Evidentiary Threshold in Disciplinary Proceedings — The quantum of proof required to hold lawyers liable in administrative disciplinary cases is substantial evidence, defined as more than a mere scintilla but such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. This is distinct from "preponderance of evidence" (civil cases) and "proof beyond reasonable doubt" (criminal cases). Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis—neither purely civil nor purely criminal—and are primarily concerned with public interest and the attorney's fitness to remain in the profession.

• Personal Appearance Requirement in Notarization — Under Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a notary public must not perform a notarial act unless the signatory is personally present at the time of notarization and is personally known to the notary or identified through competent evidence of identity. Without personal appearance, the notary cannot verify the genuineness of the signature or ascertain that the document is the party's free act or deed. Noncompliance constitutes a violation of the CPR, specifically Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01.

• Penalties for Already-Disbarred Lawyers — Where a lawyer has already been disbarred, penalties involving the privilege to practice law (suspension, revocation of notarial commission, disqualification) can no longer be imposed, but the corresponding penalty is recorded in the lawyer's personal file with the OBC for consideration in any future petition to lift disbarment. The Court retains jurisdiction to impose a fine for offenses committed while the lawyer was still a member of the Bar, as a means of asserting its authority and competence to discipline all acts committed by members of the legal profession.

• "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." — This passage articulates the substantive public interest inherent in notarization, explaining why strict compliance with notarial rules is required and why violations are severely sanctioned.

• "Disciplinary proceedings against lawyers are sui generis. Neither purely civil nor purely criminal, they do not involve a trial of an action or suit, but is rather an investigation by the Court into the conduct of one of its officers." — This is the canonical formulation of the nature of disbarment proceedings, cited from Reyes vs. Nieva, establishing that the proper evidentiary threshold is substantial evidence and that there is neither a plaintiff nor a prosecutor in such proceedings.

• "[O]nce a lawyer is disbarred, there is no penalty that could be imposed regarding his privilege to practice law." — Quoted from Valmonte vs. Quesada, Jr., this passage defines the rule that penalties involving the privilege to practice law cannot be imposed on an already-disbarred lawyer, while the Court may still record the corresponding penalty and impose a fine for prior offenses.

• Reyes vs. Nieva, 794 Phil. 360 (2016) — Controlling precedent on the evidentiary threshold in administrative disciplinary proceedings against lawyers, establishing that substantial evidence—not preponderance of evidence—is the required quantum of proof. Followed and applied to correct the IBP's erroneous standard.

• Spouses Zialcita vs. Latras, 848 Phil. 763 (2019) — Cited as comparative precedent for penalty calibration; the erring lawyer was suspended for six months, notarial commission revoked, and disqualified from being commissioned as notary public for two years for notarizing without the personal presence of the affiant.

• Gaddi vs. Velasco, 742 Phil. 810 (2014) — Cited as comparative precedent; notarial commission revoked, disqualification from commission for two years, and one year's suspension from the practice of law for the same offense.

• Orola vs. Baribar, 828 Phil. 1 (2018) — Cited as comparative precedent; one year's suspension, revocation of incumbent commission, and two years' disqualification from being commissioned as notary public in a similar case.

• Dela Cruz vs. Peralta, 930 Phil. 549 (2022) — Cited to establish that respondent had already been disbarred in a prior case, triggering the doctrine on penalties against already-disbarred lawyers.

• Valmonte vs. Quesada, Jr., 867 Phil. 247 (2019) — Controlling precedent on the rule that once a lawyer is disbarred, no penalty regarding the privilege to practice law can be further imposed, but the corresponding penalty may be recorded for purposes of any future petition to lift disbarment, and a fine may additionally be imposed.

• Sanchez vs. Inton, 866 Phil. 1 (2019) — Cited for the principle that notarization is invested with substantive public interest and that a notarized document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.

• Piczon-Hermoso vs. Parado, 885 Phil. 1 (2020) — Cited for the proposition that noncompliance with Rule IV, Section 2(b) of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice also constitutes a violation of the CPR.

• Agbulos vs. Viray, 704 Phil. 1 (2013) — Cited for the principle that a notary public should not notarize a document unless the person who signed it is the very same person who executed and personally appeared before him.

• Rule IV, Section 2(b), 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Provides that a notary public shall not perform a notarial act if the signatory is not personally present at the time of notarization and is not personally known to or identified through competent evidence of identity. Applied to find respondent liable for notarizing a document signed by deceased persons who could not have personally appeared.

• Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. Applied to hold respondent liable for notarizing a document without compliance with notarial rules, constituting deceitful conduct.

• Canon 10, Rule 10.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court, nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Applied to respondent's notarization of a document bearing signatures of deceased persons, constituting falsehood.

• Article 171, Revised Penal Code — Referenced in connection with the prior criminal case filed against respondent (which was dismissed by the City Prosecutor), though the dismissal did not preclude administrative liability due to the difference in evidentiary thresholds.

Leonen, SAJ. (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, and M. Lopez, JJ., concurred. J. Lopez, J., was on official leave.