Upholding Ethical Conduct Disciplinary Action for Unauthorized Notarization

The Supreme Court has long held that notarization is not a mere routine act. It converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. Because a notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit on its face, only those who are qualified and authorized may act as notaries public. In Mariano v. Echanez (A.C. No. 10373, May 31, 2016), the Court imposed a two-year suspension from the practice of law and a permanent ban from being commissioned as a notary public on a lawyer who performed notarial acts without a valid commission.

The Facts of the Case

Flora C. Mariano filed a complaint for disbarment against Atty. Anselmo Echanez for violating the Notarial Law by performing notarial acts without a notarial commission. She attached several documents showing that Echanez had notarized a complaint and various affidavits. She also submitted a list of lawyers who were issued notarial commissions for 2006-2007 by the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Santiago City—and Echanez's name was not on that list.

During the proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Commission on Bar Discipline (IBP-CBD), Echanez moved for extensions to file his Answer but ultimately failed to submit one. He was declared in default. He also failed to attend the mandatory conference and did not submit a position paper. Only Mariano appeared and filed her verified position paper.

To support her claim, Mariano submitted a Certificate of Lack of Authority for a Notarial Act issued by the Executive Judge showing that Echanez had not been commissioned as a notary public for the jurisdiction of the RTC, Santiago City at the time of the unauthorized notarization on May 8, 2008. A separate certification for the 2007-2008 term likewise did not include his name.

The Issue

The central issue was whether Echanez should be held administratively liable for notarizing documents without a valid notarial commission and for ignoring the IBP's processes.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court concurred with the IBP-CBD's findings and adopted its recommended penalty. The Court found it undisputed that Echanez performed notarial acts on several documents without a valid commission. His lack of authority was sufficiently established by the certifications issued by the Executive Judges in the territory where he performed the unauthorized acts.

The Court emphasized that by misrepresenting himself as a notary public for Cordon, Isabela when he was not, Echanez committed a form of falsehood that is "anathema to the lawyer's oath." This transgression ran afoul of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which states that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

The Court also noted Echanez's conduct during the proceedings. Despite notices, he did not present any defense, did not attend the mandatory conference, and ignored the IBP's directives to file his Answer and position paper. This caused years of delay in resolving the case. Citing Ngayan v. Tugade, the Court ruled that a lawyer's failure to answer a complaint and to appear at an investigation is evidence of flouting resistance to lawful orders and illustrates disregard for the lawyer's oath, in violation of Section 3, Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

Precedent Cases

The Court cited several cases imposing disciplinary action for unauthorized notarization:

• In Nunga v. Viray, a lawyer was suspended for three years for notarizing an instrument without a commission.
• In Zoreta v. Simpliciano, a lawyer was suspended for two years and permanently barred from being commissioned as a notary public for notarizing documents after the expiration of his commission.
• In Laquindanum v. Quintana, a lawyer was suspended for six months and disqualified from being commissioned as a notary public for two years for notarizing documents outside his commission's area and with an expired commission.

Practical Takeaways

• Notarization carries public interest. A lawyer who notarizes without authority undermines the integrity of public documents and faces severe administrative penalties.
• Acting without a commission is deceitful conduct. Misrepresenting oneself as a notary public violates Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and the lawyer's oath.
• Ignoring IBP processes worsens the penalty. Failure to answer a complaint, attend conferences, or submit pleadings is itself a ground for administrative liability and demonstrates disrespect for lawful orders.
• Penalties can be severe. A lawyer may face suspension from practice and a permanent ban from being commissioned as a notary public.
• Certifications from Executive Judges are strong evidence. Official certifications of notarial commissions (or the lack thereof) are decisive in establishing unauthorized notarization.

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