Attorney Misconduct When Negligence AND Deceit Lead TO Disbarment IN THE Philippines

The Supreme Court has long held that notarization is not a mere routine act but a function that engages public interest in a substantial degree. When a lawyer performs notarial acts without a valid commission, that lawyer commits a serious ethical violation that can lead to disbarment. In Javier, Jr. v. Atty. Rivera (A.C. No. 7526, April 25, 2023), the Court addressed this exact scenario and clarified the consequences for lawyers who notarize documents without the requisite authority.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Lazaro G. Javier, Jr. filed a Complaint-Affidavit against Atty. Carlos P. Rivera before the Office of the Bar Confidant. Javier alleged that from 2005 to 2006, Atty. Rivera notarized eight documents in Tuguegarao City, Cagayan. However, a Certification from the Office of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City stated that Atty. Rivera did not have a notarial commission for the years 2005 to 2007.

Throughout the proceedings, Atty. Rivera displayed a pattern of defiance. He repeatedly failed to file his Comment despite Court orders, resulting in fines of P1,000.00 and then an additional P1,000.00. It was only after the Court warned that his non-compliance would result in arrest and detention by the National Bureau of Investigation that he finally filed his Comment in March 2011.

The Issue Before the Court

The central question was whether the evidence on record was sufficient to prove the charges against Atty. Rivera. The Investigating Commissioner initially recommended dismissal, reasoning that the photocopies of the Certification and the notarized documents were not properly authenticated. However, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors reversed this recommendation.

The Ruling: Notarizing Without a Commission Is Deceitful Conduct

The Supreme Court agreed with the IBP-BOG's findings. The Court emphasized that notarization ensures the authenticity and reliability of documents. It converts a private document into a public one and renders it admissible in court without further proof of authenticity.

Citing Nunga v. Atty. Viray, the Court explained that performing notarial acts without a commission violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, specifically the Notarial Law. By making it appear that he was duly commissioned when he was not, the lawyer engages in deliberate falsehood. This conduct falls squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct. The lawyer likewise violates Canon 7, which directs every lawyer to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

The Best Evidence Rule Does Not Apply Without Objection

Atty. Rivera argued that the photocopies of the documents should not be admitted under the Best Evidence Rule. However, the Court noted that Atty. Rivera never denied notarizing the documents attached to the Complaint-Affidavit. He also did not question their authenticity. The Court reiterated that a proper and timely objection is necessary to invoke the Best Evidence Rule. Evidence not objected to is deemed admitted and may be validly considered by the Court.

A History of Repeated Misconduct

The Court gave significant weight to Atty. Rivera's prior disciplinary record. He had been suspended for one year in 2006 for notarizing documents without a commission. In 2017, he was disbarred for simulating court documents. In 2020, he was again suspended for three years for falsifying documents and notarizing without a commission.

Because Atty. Rivera had already been disbarred, the Court could not impose another disbarment. However, following the rule in Judge Dumlao, Jr. v. Atty. Camacho, the Court imposed the penalty of disbarment for recording purposes in his personal file with the Office of the Bar Confidant. This record would be considered should he ever file a petition for reinstatement.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization is a serious responsibility. A lawyer who notarizes documents without a valid commission violates the Lawyer's Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility.
• Deliberate falsehood includes implied misrepresentation. Making it appear that one is duly commissioned when one is not constitutes deceitful conduct.
• The Best Evidence Rule requires a timely objection. Photocopies not objected to may be given probative value in disciplinary proceedings.
• Repeated misconduct leads to severe penalties. A history of similar infractions demonstrates indifference to professional values and justifies disbarment.
• Disobedience to Court and IBP orders is an aggravating circumstance. Failure to comply with directives can result in fines, arrest, and heavier penalties.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.