Yusay-Cordero vs. Amihan

A lawyer who notarizes a document without a valid notarial commission is guilty of deliberate falsehood in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, warranting suspension from the practice of law, disqualification from being commissioned as notary public, and revocation of any existing notarial commission.

Complainant Lilia Yusay-Cordero and her late husband, Hector Cordero, owned land registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-102992. In 1976, the spouses executed a special power of attorney authorizing Lilia's father, Quirico Yusay Sr., to sell and mortgage the property. The property was mortgaged to a bank, and the certificate of title was surrendered to the bank as security. The prevailing law governing notarial commissions at the time of the subject notarization in 2003 was the Revised Administrative Code, which requires that the oath of office and commission of a notary public be filed and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC.

In 1976, Spouses Hector Cordero and Lilia Yusay-Cordero executed a special power of attorney authorizing Lilia's father, Quirico Yusay Sr., to sell and mortgage a parcel of land registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-102992. Pursuant to that authority, Quirico Sr. mortgaged the property to a bank and surrendered the certificate of title. On January 22, 2004, Hector passed away. In 2015, Lilia finished paying the loan and recovered the certificate of title from the bank.

Upon receiving the title, Lilia noticed an annotation pertaining to a "Deed of Portion Sale" dated December 11, 2003, between herself as seller, represented by her father Quirico Sr., and Quirico Y. Yusar, Jr. and Alberto Y. Yusay as buyers. The deed was notarized by Atty. Juanito S. Amihan, Jr. Lilia verified with the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court and discovered that Atty. Amihan, Jr. was not a commissioned notary public in 2003 and that no copy of the deed had been recorded with that office. She accordingly filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Amihan, Jr. before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for violation of the Lawyer's Oath and the Canons of Professional Responsibility, presenting certifications from the clerk of court as evidence.

Atty. Amihan, Jr. claimed that he was authorized to notarize documents in 2003. He presented imprints of his rubber stamps bearing the details "JUANITO S. AMIHAN, JR. / NOTARY PUBLIC / UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2003 / PTR NO. 1098595 / BACOLOD CITY, 10-04-02 / IAN 5520-82044-R," a recommendation letter stating that his appointment expired on December 31, 2003, and his oath of office and appointment as notary public in 2004. Lilia maintained that the rubber stamps did not establish a valid commission, as they lacked material information such as a notarial commission number.

The IBP Commission on Bar Discipline found that Atty. Amihan, Jr. was not a commissioned notary public in 2003, noting the absence of a certificate of authority and notarial reports or register for that year. The investigating commissioner gave credence to the clerk of court's certification over the rubber stamps and recommendation letter, and independently confirmed with the RTC that no notarial commission had been issued to Atty. Amihan, Jr. for 2003. The IBP Board of Governors adopted these findings but reduced the recommended suspension from two years to one year.

• Lack of Valid Notarial Commission: Complainant Lilia Yusay-Cordero maintained that Atty. Amihan, Jr. was not a commissioned notary public in 2003, as evidenced by certifications from the clerk of court of the RTC of Bacolod City stating that no notarial commission had been issued to him and that no copy of the deed had been filed with that office.
• Insufficiency of Rubber Stamps: Lilia argued that the imprints of Atty. Amihan, Jr.'s rubber stamps did not establish a valid notarial commission, as they did not contain material information such as his notarial commission number.

• Authority to Notarize: Atty. Amihan, Jr. claimed that he was authorized to notarize documents in 2003, presenting imprints of his rubber stamps indicating his notarial commission details for that year.
• Recommendation Letter as Proof: Atty. Amihan, Jr. submitted a recommendation letter stating that his appointment as notary public expired on December 31, 2003, along with his oath of office and appointment as notary public in 2004, to support his claim of valid authorization in 2003.

• Administrative Liability: Whether Atty. Amihan, Jr. is administratively liable for notarizing a document without a valid notarial commission.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the rubber-stamp imprints and recommendation letter presented by Atty. Amihan, Jr. sufficiently establish that he held a valid notarial commission in 2003.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the penalty recommended by the IBP Board of Governors is appropriate.

• Administrative Liability: Yes. Notarizing a document without a valid notarial commission constitutes deliberate falsehood in violation of the Lawyer's Oath and Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: No. The rubber-stamp imprints lacked material information such as a notarial commission number, and the clerk of court's certification — which is sufficient to establish the absence of a commission — belied the contents of the recommendation letter.
• Proper Penalty: Modified. Considering that this was Atty. Amihan, Jr.'s first infraction and that only one document was involved, the penalties were reduced to one year's suspension from the practice of law, one year's disqualification from being commissioned as notary public, and immediate revocation of any existing notarial commission.

• Administrative Liability: Notarization converts a private document into a public one and renders it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. Courts, administrative agencies, and the public must be able to rely upon acknowledgments executed by a notary public. A lawyer who notarizes a document without the required commission violates the Lawyer's Oath to obey the laws, specifically the Notarial Law, and engages in deliberate falsehood by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not. These violations fall squarely within Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. Here, it was undisputed that Atty. Amihan, Jr. notarized the deed in 2003, and the clerk of court certified that he was not a commissioned notary public that year and that no copy of the deed was filed.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Under the Revised Administrative Code, the prevailing law at the time of notarization in 2003, the oath of office of a notary public and his commission shall be filed and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC. A certification issued by the clerk of court stating that a lawyer has no notarial commission is sufficient to establish that fact. Atty. Amihan, Jr. presented only rubber-stamp imprints, which did not contain material information such as his notarial commission number, and a recommendation letter whose contents were belied by the clerk of court's certification. He failed to submit a certificate of authority for 2003 or his notarial reports and register for that year. In administrative cases against lawyers, preponderant evidence is required, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant. Lilia proved by preponderant evidence that Atty. Amihan, Jr. was not a commissioned notary public in 2003.

• Proper Penalty: In Cruz-Villanueva vs. Atty. Rivera, the respondent was suspended from the practice of law for one year and barred from being commissioned as notary public for one year for notarizing two documents without a commission, with the Court noting the absence of a prior administrative record. In Buensuceso vs. Barrera, the respondent was likewise suspended for one year for notarizing five documents after his commission expired. Considering that this was Atty. Amihan, Jr.'s first infraction and that the case involved only one document, the Court deemed it proper to impose the penalties of immediate revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as notary public for one year, and suspension from the practice of law for one year.

• Unauthorized Notarization as Deliberate Falsehood — Where a member of the Philippine Bar notarizes a document at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. Performing a notarial act without a commission violates the Lawyer's Oath to obey the laws, specifically the Notarial Law. By making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, the lawyer engages in deliberate falsehood, which the Lawyer's Oath likewise proscribes. These violations fall within Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."

• Evidentiary Weight of Clerk of Court Certification — A certification issued by the clerk of court stating that a lawyer has no notarial commission is sufficient to establish that fact. Under the Revised Administrative Code, the oath of office of a notary public and his commission shall be filed and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC. The absence of such records, as certified by the clerk of court, prevails over a lawyer's self-serving evidence such as rubber-stamp imprints and recommendation letters.

• Preponderant Evidence in Administrative Cases — In an administrative case against a lawyer, preponderant evidence is necessary, meaning the evidence adduced by one side is superior to or has greater weight than that of the other. The burden of proof rests upon the complainant.

• "Notarization is not an empty routine. On the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as a notary public." — This passage articulates the public-interest rationale underlying the regulation of notarial practice and explains why unauthorized notarization is treated as a serious disciplinary offense.

• "Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action." — Quoted from Nunga vs. Atty. Viray, this formulation is the canonical statement of the rule that unauthorized notarization constitutes both a violation of the Lawyer's Oath and deliberate falsehood under Rule 1.01 of the CPR.

• "A certification issued by the clerk of court stating that a lawyer has no notarial commission is sufficient to establish that fact." — This passage establishes the evidentiary standard for proving the absence of a notarial commission, affirming the clerk of court's certification as conclusive proof on the matter.

• Nunga vs. Atty. Viray, 366 Phil. 155 (1999) — Controlling precedent. The Court relied on this case for the doctrinal formulation that notarizing a document without a valid commission constitutes a violation of the Lawyer's Oath and deliberate falsehood under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the CPR.

• Cruz-Villanueva vs. Atty. Rivera, 537 Phil. 409 (2006) — Followed. The respondent was suspended for one year and barred from being commissioned as notary public for one year for notarizing two documents without a commission, with no prior administrative record. The Court used this case as a benchmark for the penalty imposed on Atty. Amihan, Jr.

• Buensuceso vs. Barrera, 290-A Phil. 57 (1992) — Followed. The respondent was suspended for one year for notarizing five documents after his commission expired. The Court cited this case alongside Cruz-Villanueva to calibrate the penalty, noting that Atty. Amihan, Jr.'s case involved only one document and was a first infraction.

• Sps. Frias vs. Atty. Abao, A.C. No. 12467, April 10, 2019 — Followed. Cited for the proposition that a clerk of court's certification stating that a lawyer has no notarial commission is sufficient to establish that fact.

• Aba, et al. vs. Attys. De Guzman, Jr., et al., 678 Phil. 588 (2011) — Cited for the standard of preponderant evidence in administrative cases against lawyers.

• Cruz vs. Atty. Centron, 484 Phil. 671 (2004) — Cited for the rule that the burden of proof in administrative cases rests upon the complainant.

• Rule 1.01, Canon 1, Code of Professional Responsibility — Provides that "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct." Applied as the substantive basis for finding Atty. Amihan, Jr. administratively liable, since unauthorized notarization constitutes both unlawful conduct (violation of the Notarial Law) and dishonest conduct (deliberate falsehood in making it appear he was commissioned).

• Lawyer's Oath — The oath requires lawyers to obey the laws. Notarizing without a commission violates this oath by disobeying the Notarial Law and by engaging in deliberate falsehood.

• Sections 236 and 248, Revised Administrative Code, as amended by Executive Order No. 41, s. 1945 — The prevailing law at the time of notarization in 2003, providing that the oath of office of a notary public and his commission shall be filed and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC. This provision established the legal basis for the clerk of court's certification as the authoritative record of notarial commissions.

Peralta, C.J. (Chairperson), Caguioa, Reyes, Jr., and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concurred.