Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice

A lawyer who performs notarial acts without a valid commission, or outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court, violates the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, and is subject to disciplinary action including suspension from the practice of law and permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public.

The case arose from administrative complaints filed before the Office of the Bar Confidant concerning violations of the Rules on Notarial Practice. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, particularly Section 11, Rule III, govern the jurisdiction and term of a notary public's commission, providing that a commissioned notary may perform notarial acts only within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two years. The notarial function is invested with substantive public interest because notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity and entitling it to full faith and credit upon its face.

Four commissioned notaries public within the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Pangasinan — Atty. Butch Cardinal Torio, Atty. Nepthalie Pasiliao, Atty. Dominique Evangelista, and Atty. Elizabeth C. Tugade — filed a letter-complaint dated March 2, 2009 before the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan against Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. They alleged that Atty. Siapno was maintaining a notarial office along Alvear Street East, Lingayen, Pangasinan, and was performing notarial acts in Lingayen, Natividad, and Dagupan City without the requisite notarial commission. They asserted that Atty. Siapno was never commissioned as Notary Public for those jurisdictions; instead, he had been commissioned by Executive Judge Anthony Sison of the RTC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan from March 22, 2007 to December 31, 2008, and his commission was never renewed upon expiration.

The complainants presented evidence supporting their allegations, including pictures of Atty. Siapno's law office in Lingayen and documents showing he performed notarial acts in the three places: (1) an Addendum to Loan and Mortgage Agreement showing a Promissory Note notarized before Atty. Siapno in Lingayen in 2007; (2) a Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 24, 2008, notarized in Natividad; (3) a Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons Re: Given Name and Date of Birth dated January 6, 2009, notarized in Dagupan City; and (4) an Acknowledgement of Debt dated January 24, 2008, notarized in Dagupan City. The complainants also averred that Atty. Siapno had delegated his notarial authority to his secretaries, Mina Bautista and Mary Ann Arenas, who wrote legal instruments and signed documents on his behalf.

At the formal investigation, the complainants affirmed the allegations in their letter-complaint. Atty. Siapno denied the accusations, averring that the law office in Lingayen was not his and that Bautista and Arenas were not his secretaries. The Executive Judge found that Atty. Siapno was issued a notarial commission within the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Pangasinan from January 20, 2003 to December 31, 2004 and from February 8, 2005 to December 3, 2006, but his commission was cancelled on June 8, 2006 and he was not issued another commission thereafter. The Executive Judge found Atty. Siapno to have violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Commission and recommended a fine of ₱50,000.00.

A second letter-complaint was filed by Audy B. Espelita against Atty. Pedro L. Santos, alleging that in 2008, Espelita lost his driver's license and executed an affidavit of loss notarized by Atty. Santos, which was denied for authentication before the Notarial Section in Manila because Atty. Santos was not commissioned to perform notarial acts within the City of Manila. A third letter-complaint came from a concerned citizen reporting that a certain Atty. Evelyn, holding office at Room 402 Leyba Bldg., 381 Dasmariñas Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, had been notarizing and signing documents for and on behalf of several lawyers. Judge Ros later informed the Court that he could not comply with the orders to investigate because he was no longer the Executive Judge of RTC-Manila, and no formal investigation had been conducted on these complaints.

• Lack of Notarial Commission: The complainants argued that Atty. Siapno was never commissioned as Notary Public for Lingayen, Natividad, and Dagupan City, and that his commission from San Carlos City had expired and was never renewed, yet he continued performing notarial acts in those jurisdictions.
• Delegation of Notarial Authority: The complainants averred that Atty. Siapno delegated his notarial authority to his secretaries, Mina Bautista and Mary Ann Arenas, who wrote legal instruments and signed documents on his behalf.

• Denial of Allegations: Atty. Siapno denied the accusations, averring that the law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan was not his and that Bautista and Arenas were not his secretaries.

• Violation of Notarial Rules: Whether Atty. Siapno violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by performing notarial acts without a commission and outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court.
• Appropriate Penalty: Whether the recommended penalty of a ₱50,000.00 fine was sufficient given the circumstances of the case.
• Complaints against Atty. Santos and Atty. Evelyn: Whether the complaints against Atty. Pedro L. Santos and a certain Atty. Evelyn should proceed to formal investigation.

• Violation of Notarial Rules: Yes. Atty. Siapno violated Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by performing notarial functions in Lingayen, Natividad, and Dagupan City without a commission, since only persons commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the court which granted the commission.
• Appropriate Penalty: The recommended fine was insufficient. Atty. Siapno was suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years and barred permanently from being commissioned as Notary Public, effective upon his receipt of a copy of the decision.
• Complaints against Atty. Santos and Atty. Evelyn: The Clerk of Court was ordered to re-docket the complaints as separate administrative cases, and the incumbent Executive Judge of RTC-Manila was ordered to conduct a formal investigation and submit a Report and Recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of the decision.

• Violation of Notarial Rules: Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides that a person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two years, unless earlier revoked or the notary has resigned. The Court found that Atty. Siapno's commissions from January 20, 2003 to December 31, 2004 and February 8, 2005 to December 3, 2006 were cancelled on June 8, 2006, and he was not issued another commission thereafter. The evidence showed he maintained a law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan, just beside the law office of complainant Atty. Elizabeth Tugade, and notarized several instruments with an expired commission outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court. The Court emphasized that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routine act; it is invested with substantive public interest, and only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission, Atty. Siapno violated not only his oath to obey the laws but also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which proscribe lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct and direct them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession at all times.
• Appropriate Penalty: The Court found the recommended penalty of ₱50,000.00 insufficient, citing prior cases: in Nunga vs. Viray, a lawyer was suspended for three years for notarizing an instrument without a commission; in Zoreta vs. Simpliciano, the respondent was suspended for two years and permanently barred from being commissioned as a notary public for notarizing documents after the expiration of his commission; and in Laquindanum vs. Quintana, a lawyer was suspended for six months and disqualified from being commissioned as notary public for two years for notarizing documents outside the area of his commission and with an expired commission. Considering that Atty. Siapno performed notarial work in three places without the requisite commission, the Court imposed a two-year suspension from the practice of law and a permanent bar from being commissioned as notary public.
• Complaints against Atty. Santos and Atty. Evelyn: Since Judge Ros could no longer conduct the investigation as he was no longer the Executive Judge of RTC-Manila, and no formal investigation had been conducted, the Court ordered the re-docketing of the complaints as separate administrative cases and directed the incumbent Executive Judge of RTC-Manila to conduct the formal investigation and submit a Report and Recommendation within sixty days.

• Notarization as a Public Interest Function — Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, and routine act; it is invested with substantive public interest, and only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. The act of notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity, and a notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. For this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.
• Territorial Jurisdiction and Term of Notarial Commission — Under Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, a person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts only within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two years, unless earlier revoked or the notary has resigned. Performing notarial acts outside this jurisdiction or with an expired commission constitutes a violation of the Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility — A lawyer who performs notarial acts without the necessary commission violates not only the oath to obey the laws, particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice, but also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which proscribe all lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct and direct them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession at all times.

• "Time and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routine act. It is invested with substantive public interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public." — This passage articulates the core principle underlying the Court's decision: notarization carries substantial public interest, justifying strict disciplinary action against unauthorized practitioners.
• "It must be emphasized that the act of notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties." — This excerpt explains the legal significance of notarization and the corresponding duty of care imposed on notaries public.
• "By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the court, Atty. Siapno violated not only his oath to obey the laws particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice but also Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which proscribes all lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at all times." — This passage identifies the specific provisions violated and connects the notarial violation to broader professional responsibility obligations.

• Nunga vs. Viray, 366 Phil. 155 (1999) — Cited as a case where a lawyer was suspended for three years for notarizing an instrument without a commission; used to support the imposition of a heavier penalty than the recommended fine.
• Zoreta vs. Simpliciano, 485 Phil. 395 (2004) — Cited as a case where the respondent was suspended from the practice of law for two years and permanently barred from being commissioned as a notary public for notarizing documents after the expiration of his commission; directly analogous to Atty. Siapno's situation.
• Laquindanum vs. Quintana, A.C. No. 7036, June 29, 2009, 591 SCRA 204 — Cited as a recent case where a lawyer was suspended for six months and disqualified from being commissioned as notary public for two years for notarizing documents outside the area of his commission and with an expired commission.
• St. Louis University Laboratory High School (SLU-LHS) Faculty and Staff vs. Dela Cruz, 531 Phil. 213 (2006) — Cited for the proposition that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.
• Zaballero vs. Montalvan, 473 Phil. 18 (2004) — Cited for the same proposition regarding the qualification and authorization required to act as a notary public.

• Section 11, Rule III, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — Provides that a person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned. The Court applied this provision to find that Atty. Siapno could not perform notarial functions in Lingayen, Natividad, and Dagupan City since he was not commissioned in those places.
• Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Proscribes all lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The Court found Atty. Siapno violated this canon by performing notarial acts without the necessary commission.
• Canon 7, Code of Professional Responsibility — Directs lawyers to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession at all times. The Court found this canon also violated by Atty. Siapno's unauthorized notarial acts.

Sereno, C.J.; Carpio, J.; Velasco, Jr., J.; Leonardo-De Castro, J.; Peralta, J.; Bersamin, J.; Del Castillo, J.; Villarama, Jr., J.; Perez, J.; Reyes, J.; Perlas-Bernabe, J.; Leonen, J.; and Jardeleza, J. (Brion, J., on official leave).