Spouses Pepito and Prescila Frias vs. Atty. Nelly E. Abao

A lawyer who performs a notarial act without a valid notarial commission engages in unlawful and deceitful conduct in violation of the lawyer’s oath and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law and permanent disqualification from holding a notarial commission. Notarization without commission is a deliberate falsehood because it misrepresents the lawyer’s authority, and the offense is aggravated when the lawyer falsely attests to the personal appearance of the parties.

The Spouses Pepito and Prescila Frias owned a parcel of land in Dao, Capiz, covered by TCT No. T-14354. In early 1995, facing financial difficulties and their daughter’s heart ailment, they obtained P340,000 from the Arbiz spouses. By oral agreement, the Spouses Frias leased the property to the Arbiz spouses for twenty years, from January 16, 1995 to January 16, 2015, with the lessees assuming real estate taxes and holding the owner’s duplicate title. The Spouses Frias left for Mindanao. After the lease period expired, they sought to reclaim the property from the Arbiz spouses’ heirs, who refused, claiming the land had been sold. The heirs presented a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 11, 1995, notarized by respondent Atty. Nelly E. Abao. The Spouses Frias denied executing any sale and procured official certification that Atty. Abao had never been commissioned as a notary public in Capiz for 1995.

• The Lease Agreement: The Spouses Frias owned a parcel of land in Barangay Malonoy, Dao, Capiz, covered by TCT No. T-14354. In early 1995, due to their daughter’s heart disease and financial hardship, they accepted an offer from Rodrigo Arbiz and his wife Maria to lend them money, secured by the property for twenty years. Fearful of losing the land, the Spouses Frias proposed a lease instead. The parties orally agreed that (1) the Spouses Frias would receive P340,000 and would not be obliged to return the amount; (2) the Arbiz spouses would possess the property from January 16, 1995 to January 16, 2015, enjoying its use and produce; (3) the Arbiz spouses would pay real estate taxes; (4) the Spouses Frias would not disturb possession until after twenty years; and (5) the owner’s duplicate title would be entrusted to the Arbiz spouses. The agreement was not reduced to writing. The Spouses Frias left for South Cotabato on January 16, 1995.
• The Disputed Deed of Absolute Sale: The Arbiz spouses eventually died, and their heirs, Jermehilda Escutin and Danilo Escutin, took possession of the property. After the lease term expired in 2015, the Spouses Frias returned to Capiz to claim the land, but the Escutins refused to vacate, asserting ownership based on a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 11, 1995, notarized by respondent Atty. Nelly E. Abao. The Spouses Frias denied executing any deed of sale, maintaining they were in Mindanao on that date and never returned to Capiz.
• Investigation and Certification: The Spouses Frias filed a complaint for ejectment against the Escutins (later dismissed) and sought verification of the notarized deed. The Clerk of Court of Roxas City, Atty. Jelou F. Almalbis-Laguna, issued a Certification dated November 3, 2015, stating that the Deed of Absolute Sale under Doc. No. 106, Page 23, Book No. LVIX did not exist in the notarial archives and that Atty. Abao was never commissioned as a notary public in Roxas City, Capiz for the year 1995. In her Judicial Affidavit, Atty. Abao claimed that the Spouses Frias personally appeared and signed the deed before her, assertions that the Spouses Frias denounced as false in the administrative complaint.

• Unauthorized Notarization: The Spouses Frias argued that Atty. Abao notarized the Deed of Absolute Sale without a valid notarial commission, as established by the Clerk of Court’s certification that no commission existed for 1995 and that the document was not in the official notarial records.
• Falsehood in Judicial Affidavit: The Spouses Frias maintained that Atty. Abao knowingly made false statements in her Judicial Affidavit when she attested that Pepito and Prescila Frias personally appeared before her and signed the deed, when they were in Mindanao at the time and never executed a sale.

• Admission of Lack of Commission: Atty. Abao admitted that she notarized the subject Deed of Absolute Sale without a notarial commission and offered no valid excuse for the unauthorized act.
• Denial of Fictitious Document: She denied notarizing a fictitious deed and insisted that the Spouses Frias personally appeared and signed the document before her. She raised old age and sickness only as mitigating circumstances.

• Notarial Commission: Whether Atty. Abao’s performance of a notarial act without a valid notarial commission violated the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Notarial Law.
• Appropriate Penalty: What administrative sanction is proper for a lawyer who notarizes a document without a commission and misrepresents her authority.

• Notarial Commission: Notarization of a document without a notarial commission was deemed a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility — which forbids unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct — and of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws. Notarization is imbued with substantive public interest; it converts a private document into a public instrument entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Because Atty. Abao performed a notarial act without legal authority, she engaged in deliberate falsehood by representing herself as duly commissioned. The official certification from the Clerk of Court conclusively established the absence of any commission for 1995 in the place where she acted, and she admitted the unauthorized notarization.
• Appropriate Penalty: The IBP-recommended penalty was found insufficient. Consistent with the pronouncements in Nunga v. Viray, Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice, and Japitana v. Atty. Parado, a lawyer who performs notarial work without a valid commission commits a grave offense that warrants a two-year suspension from the practice of law and permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. The plea of old age and sickness was rejected because Atty. Abao was only fifty-four years old at the time of the unauthorized act.

• Notarization without Commission as Malpractice — A lawyer who performs a notarial act without a valid notarial commission violates the lawyer’s oath and Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, or deceitful conduct. The unauthorized act itself constitutes a deliberate falsehood because the lawyer misrepresents herself as having authority to notarize. The offense exposes the lawyer to disciplinary action independently of any criminal liability. (Nunga v. Viray, 366 Phil. 155 (1999))
• Public Interest in Notarization — Notarization is not a meaningless, routine act; it is invested with substantive public interest. A notarized document is, by law, admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. Consequently, notaries public must observe the utmost care in performing their duties. (St. Louis University Laboratory High School Faculty and Staff v. Dela Cruz, 531 Phil. 213 (2006))

• “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. 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.”
• “Without a commission, a lawyer is unauthorized to perform any of the notarial acts. Clearly, for misrepresenting in the subject Deed of Absolute Sale that she was a notary public for and in Dao, Capiz, when in fact she was not, Atty. Abao further committed a form of falsehood which is undoubtedly anathema to the lawyer’s oath.”

• Nunga v. Atty. Viray, 366 Phil. 155 (1999) — Followed. Established that notarizing a document without a commission is a violation of Rule 1.01 of the CPR and the lawyer’s oath, constituting deliberate falsehood.
• Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice, 751 Phil. 10 (2015) — Followed. Provided the authority for the penalty of two-year suspension from law practice and permanent disqualification from notarial commission for unauthorized notarization.
• Japitana v. Atty. Parado, 779 Phil. 182 (2016) — Followed. Applied the same penalty as in Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice to a lawyer who notarized documents without an existing commission.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.” Applied to the unauthorized notarization, which was characterized as both unlawful conduct and a deliberate falsehood.
• 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice — A notary public may perform notarial acts only within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court and only during the two-year period of the commission commencing on the first day of January of the year of commissioning. Atty. Abao violated these rules by notarizing a document in 1995 in Dao, Capiz, without any valid commission.

Bersamin, C.J., Carpio, Leonen, Caguioa, A. Reyes, Jr., Gesmundo, J. Reyes, Jr., Hernando, Carandang, and Lazaro-Javier, JJ. (Del Castillo and Jardeleza, JJ., on wellness leave; Perlas-Bernabe, J., on leave.)