Attorney Accountability: Honesty in Legal Practice and Notarial Duties

The Supreme Court has long emphasized that notarization is not a mere routine. In Agadan v. Atty. Kilaan (A.C. No. 9385, November 11, 2013), the Court disciplined a lawyer for inaccuracies in his notarial register and for making false statements in his defense. The case is a reminder that lawyers are personally accountable for their notarial acts and must uphold honesty at every turn.

The Complaint and the Allegations

Nine complainants filed an administrative case against Atty. Richard Baltazar Kilaan before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. They accused him of falsifying documents, dishonesty, and deceit in connection with an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) to operate a public utility jeepney.

Among the allegations, the complainants claimed that Atty. Kilaan intercalated entries in the application, substituting the name of the original applicant with another. They also asserted that the Verification in the application was notarized by him but that the notarial entry actually referred to a different document—a Deed of Sale. Further, they alleged that he falsely claimed the original applicant was abroad when, in fact, that person had never left the country.

The Investigating Commissioner’s Findings

The Investigating Commissioner found insufficient evidence to prove the intercalation charge, noting that it was based on mere suspicion. However, the Commissioner did find Atty. Kilaan liable for violating the Notarial Law. The Verification he notarized was recorded as a Deed of Sale in his Notarial Register, and he failed to make the proper entries. The Commissioner also found that Atty. Kilaan lied under oath when he alleged that the original applicant was abroad, as this was contradicted by an affidavit.

The Commissioner recommended the revocation of Atty. Kilaan’s notarial commission, disqualification from being a notary public for two years, and a two-month suspension from the practice of law. The IBP Board of Governors adopted the recommendation but deleted the suspension from law practice.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found Atty. Kilaan guilty of three infractions: violation of the Notarial Law, violation of the Lawyer’s Oath, and violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

On the notarial violation, the Court held that a notary public is personally accountable for the accuracy of entries in his Notarial Register. Atty. Kilaan had blamed his secretary for the inaccuracies, but the Court rejected this excuse, citing Lingan v. Attys. Calubaquib and Baliga (524 Phil. 60, 2006). The Court stressed that notarization is invested with public interest and converts a private document into a public one. It cited the Notarial Law, which requires the notary to keep a register and record all official acts in chronological order, and which makes the failure to make proper entries a ground for revocation of the notarial commission.

The Court also cited the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which require a notary to keep a Notarial Register and list failure to make proper entries as a ground for revocation. The Court noted that Atty. Kilaan failed to make proper entries, warranting revocation of his commission.

On the violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility, the Court found that Atty. Kilaan committed falsehood in his pleadings. He claimed that the original applicant was abroad, but this was proven untrue. The Court cited Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states: “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.” It also cited Canon 1, Rule 1.01: “A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.”

The Court imposed the following penalties: revocation of Atty. Kilaan’s notarial commission, if still existing; disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for one year; suspension from the practice of law for three months; and a warning that repetition of similar violations would be dealt with more severely.

Why This Matters

This case reinforces the ethical standards expected of lawyers. It underscores that notaries public cannot delegate their responsibilities to staff. They must personally ensure that every entry in their Notarial Register is accurate. The ruling also serves as a warning that falsehood in pleadings—even in administrative cases—will not be tolerated. The Supreme Court’s decision sends a clear message: honesty and integrity are non-negotiable in the legal profession.

Practical Takeaways

• Notaries public are personally responsible for all entries in their Notarial Register. Delegating this task to a secretary does not excuse liability.
• Failure to make proper notarial entries is a ground for revocation of a notary’s commission under the Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.
• Lawyers must not commit falsehood in any pleading or document submitted to a court or tribunal. Doing so violates the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer’s Oath.
• Sanctions for such violations can include revocation of notarial commission, disqualification from being a notary, and suspension from law practice.

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