Tenoso vs. Echanez

A lawyer who notarizes documents without a valid notarial commission is guilty of deceit and falsehood, violating Rules 1.01 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and may be suspended from the practice of law and disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public.

The complainant filed an administrative complaint against the respondent, a lawyer practicing in Cordon, Isabela, alleging that he engaged in notarial practice without being properly commissioned by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City, Isabela, which exercises jurisdiction over the Municipality of Cordon. The practice of law is imbued with public interest, and lawyers are bound to maintain high standards of morality, honesty, integrity, and fair dealing. Notarization is not a routinary act but converts a private document into a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without preliminary proof of authenticity.

Efigenia M. Tenoso filed a complaint against Atty. Anselmo S. Echanez, alleging that he was engaged in practice as a notary public in Cordon, Isabela, without having been properly commissioned by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City, Isabela, the court exercising jurisdiction over the Municipality of Cordon. To support her allegations, complainant attached two documents signed and issued by RTC Santiago City Executive Judge Efren M. Cacatian bearing the names of commissioned notaries public within the territorial jurisdiction of the RTC of Santiago City for the years 2006 to 2007 and 2007 to 2008, on which respondent's name does not appear. She also attached copies of ten documents that appear to have been notarized by respondent in the years 2006, 2007, and 2008, and a certification issued by Judge Cacatian stating that a joint-affidavit notarized by respondent in 2008 could not be "authenticated as to respondent's seal and signature as NO Notarial Commission was issued upon him at the time of the document's notarization."

In his two-page Answer, respondent denied the allegations, stating, "I have never been notarizing any document or pleadings," and added that he has "never committed any malpractice, nor deceit nor have violated [the] lawyers (sic) oath." He dismissed the allegations as "preposterous, full of lies, politically motivated and x x x meant to harass or intimidate [him]." He also surmised that the documents annexed to the Affidavit-Complaint were "tampered and adulterated," or that "[s]omebody might have forged [his] signature." Respondent failed to attend the mandatory conference and likewise failed to file his Position Paper.

The Investigating Commissioner found that complainant presented evidence supporting her allegation that respondent had notarized various documents in Cordon, Isabela from 2006 to 2008 and that respondent's name does not appear on the list of notaries public commissioned by the RTC of Santiago City, Isabela for the years 2006 to 2007 and 2007 to 2008. Respondent failed to present evidence to rebut complainant's allegations, merely positing that the notarized documents were "tampered and adulterated" or were results of forgery, but he failed to present any proof. Respondent also resorted to a sweeping and unsupported statement that he never notarized any document.

• Violation of Notarial Rules: Complainant alleged that respondent engaged in notarial practice without being properly commissioned by the RTC of Santiago City, Isabela, in violation of Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC).
• Evidence of Non-Commission: Complainant presented documents signed by the RTC Executive Judge showing respondent's name does not appear on the lists of commissioned notaries public, copies of ten documents notarized by respondent, and a certification that a document notarized by respondent could not be authenticated because no notarial commission was issued to him.

• Bare Denial: Respondent denied the allegations, stating "I have never been notarizing any document or pleadings" and claimed he has "never committed any malpractice, nor deceit nor have violated [the] lawyers (sic) oath."
• Allegation of Tampering: Respondent dismissed the allegations as "preposterous, full of lies, politically motivated and x x x meant to harass or intimidate [him]," surmising that the documents were "tampered and adulterated" or that "[s]omebody might have forged [his] signature."
• Failure to Participate: Respondent failed to attend the mandatory conference and failed to file his Position Paper.

• Notarial Practice Without Commission: Whether respondent engaged in notarial practice without a valid notarial commission, in violation of Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Rules 1.01 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether complainant's evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding of liability against respondent despite his bare denials.

• Notarial Practice Without Commission: Yes. Respondent repeatedly notarized documents without the requisite notarial commission, violating Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Rules 1.01 and 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Yes. Respondent's bare denials and unsupported allegations of tampering or forgery were insufficient to rebut complainant's evidence, and the burden of proof under Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court was not discharged.

• Notarial Practice Without Commission: The Court found that complainant presented evidence supporting her allegation that respondent had notarized various documents in Cordon, Isabela from 2006 to 2008 and that respondent's name does not appear on the list of notaries public commissioned by the RTC of Santiago City, Isabela. The Court emphasized that the practice of law is imbued with public interest and that a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, taking part in one of the most important functions of the State — the administration of justice — as an officer of the court. Lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. The duties of notaries public are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest. Notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a private document to a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution. In misrepresenting himself as a notary public, respondent exposed party-litigants, courts, other lawyers and the general public to the perils of ordinary documents posing as public instruments. The Investigating Commissioner noted that respondent committed acts of deceit and falsehood in open violation of the explicit pronouncements of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and his conduct falls miserably short of the high standards of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing required from lawyers.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: The Court applied Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, which provides that the burden of proof is vested upon the party who alleges the truth of his claim or defense or any fact in issue. Citing Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator vs. Gutierrez, the Court noted that where a party resorts to bare denials and allegations and fails to submit evidence in support of his defense, the determination that he committed the violation is sustained. Respondent merely posited that the notarized documents presented by complainant were "tampered and adulterated" or were results of forgery, but he failed to present any proof. Respondent also resorted to a sweeping and unsupported statement that he never notarized any document. Accordingly, the reasonable conclusion is that respondent repeatedly notarized documents without the requisite notarial commission.

• Notarial Practice as Public Function — Notarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a private document to a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that respondent's misrepresentation as a notary public exposed party-litigants, courts, other lawyers and the general public to the perils of ordinary documents posing as public instruments.

• Burden of Proof in Administrative Cases — Under Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, the burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. The Court applied this rule to sustain the finding of liability against respondent, who resorted to bare denials and failed to present evidence in support of his defense.

• Lawyer's Duty to Maintain High Standards — Lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing. The Court applied this principle to find that respondent's conduct in notarizing documents without a commission fell miserably short of these standards, warranting sanction.

• "Time and again, this Court emphasizes that the practice of law is imbued with public interest and that 'a lawyer owes substantial duties not only to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most important functions of the State — the administration of justice — as an officer of the court.'" — This passage articulates the foundational principle that the practice of law is a public profession, which the Court used to justify the imposition of sanctions on respondent.

• "'[N]otarization is not a routinary, meaningless act, for notarization converts a private document to a public instrument, making it admissible in evidence without the necessity of preliminary proof of its authenticity and due execution.'" — This quotation defines the significance of notarization and explains why respondent's unauthorized notarial acts were particularly harmful to the public.

• "In misrepresenting himself as a notary public, respondent exposed party-litigants, courts, other lawyers and the general public to the perils of ordinary documents posing as public instruments." — This passage states the Court's reasoning for finding respondent's conduct egregious, as it undermined the integrity of public documents.

• Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator vs. Gutierrez, A.M. No. P-11-2951, February 15, 2012 — Cited as controlling precedent for the principle that where a party resorts to bare denials and allegations and fails to submit evidence in support of his defense, the determination that he committed the violation is sustained.

• In the Matter of the IBP Membership Dues Delinquency of Atty. Marcial A. Edillon, 174 Phil. 55, 62 (1978) — Cited for the principle that the practice of law is imbued with public interest and that a lawyer owes substantial duties to his client, the profession, the courts, and the nation.

• Ventura vs. Samson, A.C. No. 9608, November 27, 2012 — Cited for the principle that lawyers are bound to maintain not only a high standard of legal proficiency, but also of morality, honesty, integrity and fair dealing.

• Dela Cruz vs. Dimaano, A.C. No. 7781, September 12, 2008, 565 SCRA 1, 7, citing Domingo vs. Reed, G.R. No. 157701, December 9, 2005, 477 SCRA 227, 238 — Cited for the principle that the duties of notaries public are dictated by public policy and impressed with public interest, and that notarization converts a private document to a public instrument.

• Rule III, 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) — The rule requiring notaries public to be properly commissioned by the Regional Trial Court. The Court found that respondent violated this rule by notarizing documents without a commission.

• Rule 1.01, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. The Court found that respondent violated this rule by misrepresenting himself as a notary public.

• 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 shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. The Court found that respondent violated this rule through his deceitful conduct.

• Section 1, Rule 131, Rules of Court — Defines burden of proof as the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or defense. The Court applied this rule to hold that respondent's bare denials were insufficient to rebut complainant's evidence.

• Section 12(b), Rule 139-B, Rules of Court — Governs review and decision by the IBP Board of Governors, requiring transmission of the resolution to the Supreme Court for final action. This provision was the procedural basis for the case reaching the Supreme Court.

Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concurred.