Expired Notarial Commission: When Notarizing Without Authority Leads to Disbarment-Adjacent Penalties

The Supreme Court has long emphasized that notarization is not a mere routine act—it is a public service invested with substantial public interest. When a lawyer allows documents to be notarized under an expired commission, the consequences extend far beyond a simple administrative slap on the wrist. In Judge Adelbert S. Santillan v. Atty. Nepthali P. Solilapsi (A.C. No. 12552, December 5, 2022), the Court demonstrated just how seriously it treats violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

The Facts of the Case

In March 2019, a client requested a Certificate of Notarial Act from the Office of Executive Judge Adelbert S. Santillan of the Regional Trial Court, Polomolok, South Cotabato. The request concerned documents—a Certificate of End of Contract and an Affidavit of Employment—that had been notarized by Atty. Nepthali P. Solilapsi.

Upon investigation, Judge Santillan discovered that Atty. Solilapsi had notarized these documents in March 2019, despite his notarial commission having expired in December 2018. Further inquiry revealed a more alarming pattern: the two documents in question were merely the 208th and 331st documents notarized by Atty. Solilapsi after the lapse of his commission. In total, he had notarized more than 300 legal documents without valid authority.

The Defense Offered

In his Letter-Explanation, Atty. Solilapsi claimed that the documents were notarized by his law office staff in his absence and without his knowledge or permission. He argued that he only discovered the notarizations when his attention was called to the matter.

The Court found this defense untenable. It deemed it incredible that a lawyer would be unaware of over 300 documents notarized in his name and in his law office. Accepting such an explanation would be contrary to natural human experience, the Court reasoned.

The Legal Framework

The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice (A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC) govern notarial acts in the Philippines. Under these rules, a notarial commission is valid for a specific term, and any notarial act performed beyond that term is unauthorized. The exact text of the provision on the term of a notarial commission is not reproduced in the library materials available for this article, but the rule's effect is clear: a lawyer without a valid commission is proscribed from performing notarial acts.

The Court reiterated that notarization is not an empty, meaningless act—it is invested with substantive public interest, and only those qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.

The Ruling

The Court found Atty. Solilapsi guilty of violating the Lawyer's Oath, Rule 1.01, Canon 1 and Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice.

The penalties imposed were severe: two years of suspension from the practice of law and permanent disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public. The Court also revoked any incumbent notarial commission and issued a stern warning that repetition of similar conduct would be dealt with more severely.

In imposing these penalties, the Court cited established jurisprudence, including Nunga v. Atty. Viray (366 Phil. 155 [1999]), which held that notarizing without authorization constitutes a violation of the Notarial Rules, the Lawyer's Oath, and the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Why the Defense Failed

The Court emphasized that a notary public has a bounden duty to ensure that only qualified or authorized persons perform notarial acts. A lawyer cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by feigning ignorance of his office staff's actions. The duty is personal and non-delegable—a lawyer cannot pass responsibility to employees when notarial acts are performed in his name.

The Court also found it unthinkable that a lawyer would have no knowledge of over 300 documents notarized in his name and in his law office. Such a claim defies ordinary human experience and strains credulity.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarial commissions expire. A lawyer must track the expiration date of his or her notarial commission and cease all notarial acts immediately upon expiration. Renewal is not automatic.
• Personal responsibility is absolute. A lawyer cannot delegate notarial duties to office staff. If staff notarize documents in the lawyer's name, the lawyer bears full responsibility—ignorance is not a defense.
• The volume of violations matters. Notarizing over 300 documents with an expired commission demonstrates a pattern of disregard for the rules, warranting heavier penalties than a single isolated act.
• Penalties can be severe. Violations can result in suspension from the practice of law for up to two years or more, plus permanent disqualification from notarial work—a significant blow to a legal practice.
• The Court takes notarial integrity seriously. Notarization is a public trust. Lawyers who treat it casually risk not only administrative sanctions but also damage to their professional reputation.

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