Lawyers Must Substantiate Claims Against Judges: Notarial Ethics and Administrative Liability

A lawyer who makes serious accusations against a judge must be prepared to prove them. In Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum v. Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana (A.C. No. 7036, June 29, 2009), the Supreme Court disciplined a lawyer not only for multiple violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice but also for leveling unfounded allegations against an executive judge. The case reminds lawyers that their privilege to practice law carries with it the duty to act with integrity and to substantiate any claim they make against members of the bench.

The Facts of the Case

Executive Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana. The judge alleged that the lawyer performed notarial acts in Midsayap, which was outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court that issued his notarial commission. His commission was limited to Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao.

Judge Laquindanum also claimed that Atty. Quintana allowed his wife—who was not a lawyer—to perform notarial acts in his absence. The evidence showed that the lawyer notarized several documents in Midsayap and Kabacan, Cotabato, which were outside his authorized area. He also continued notarizing documents even after his commission expired on December 31, 2005.

The Lawyer's Defense

In his defense, Atty. Quintana claimed that Judge Laquindanum singled him out and deliberately refused to act on his petition for a notarial commission. He alleged that the judge required him to transfer his IBP membership to the Kidapawan City Chapter, where her sister served as president, and humiliated him through letters and directives to court personnel.

The Supreme Court found these accusations unsupported. Records showed that when Atty. Quintana filed his petition in 2004, he had not yet fully paid his IBP dues—a requirement for the issuance of a notarial commission. He paid his arrears only in January 2006. The Court noted that the lawyer's claims against the judge were not substantiated by evidence.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found Atty. Quintana guilty of four violations:

1. Notarizing outside his commission's territorial jurisdiction, violating Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. This act partakes of malpractice of law and falsification.

2. Performing notarial acts with an expired commission, which violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws and amounts to indulging in deliberate falsehood.

3. Allowing his wife to notarize documents, violating Section 2(b)(1), Rule IV of the Notarial Rules and Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which prohibits lawyers from assisting in the unauthorized practice of law.

4. Notarizing a Deed of Donation where one signatory had already died, showing gross negligence and ignorance of the rules requiring the signatory's personal presence.

The Court rejected the lawyer's argument that his notarial commission was his family's only source of income. It emphasized that notarization is not a money-making venture but a privilege imbued with public interest.

The Penalty

The Court revoked Atty. Quintana's notarial commission, disqualified him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, and suspended him from the practice of law for six months. It warned that a repetition of similar violations would be dealt with more severely.

Practical Takeaways

• A lawyer must substantiate accusations against a judge. Unsupported allegations of bias or harassment can damage a lawyer's own credibility in administrative proceedings.

• A notarial commission is territorial and temporary. A notary public may perform notarial acts only within the jurisdiction of the commissioning court and only during the commission's validity period.

• A notary public is personally accountable for all entries in the notarial register. The notary cannot shift blame to office staff or family members who perform notarial acts without authority.

• Notarizing a document without the signatory's personal presence is a serious violation. This applies even when the signatory is deceased or otherwise unavailable.

• Notarization is a public trust, not a business. Lawyers who treat their notarial commission as a mere income source risk severe disciplinary sanctions.

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