FIRST DIVISION
A.C. No. 12709, September 08, 2020
LILIA YUSAY-CORDERO,COMPLAINANT, V. ATTY. JUANITO AMIHAN, JR., RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
LOPEZ, J.:
We determine in this case the administrative liability of a lawyer who notarized a document without a notarial commission.
Contrary to his claim, Respondent does not appear that he was commissioned as a notary public for and in the City of Bacolod. The Respondent, for his part, has been completely unable to submit any kind of proof of his claim that he had a commission as a notary public for and in the City of Bacolod in 2003, or of his submission of notarial reports and notarial register during the said period. Respondent has only presented the imprints of his rubber stamps indicating his notarial commission details for the year 2003. He failed to establish that he was certainly commissioned as a notary public nor he wasn't [sic] able to produce his Certificate Authority issued by the Executive Judge which evidences the authenticity of his commission.On February 15, 2019, the IBP Board of Governors reduced the penalty of suspension from the practice of law from two years to one year, viz.: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Respondent's claim that his authority to notarize documents is confirmed thru the Recommendation issued by the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City does not hold water. It is the Certificate of Notarial Act and not the Recommendation of the court which authorizes and commission a lawyers as a notary public.x x x x
Finally, undersigned Commissioner went out of her way to inquire with the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City if Respondent was indeed issued a notarial commission for 2003. She was [in fact] able to confirm that Respondent had no notarial commission.11 (Emphases supplied.)
RESOLVED to ADOPT the findings of fact and recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner, with modification, to impose upon the Respondent the penalty of ONE (1) YEAR SUSPENSION FROM THE PRACTICE OF LAW and TWO (2) YEARS DISQUALIFICATION to hold commission as Notary Public, and if currently so engaged, be immediately decommissioned as such.12cralawlawlibrary
Where the notarization of a document is done by a member of the Philippine Bar at a time when he has no authorization or commission to do so, the offender may be subjected to disciplinary action. For one, performing a notarial without such commission is a violation of the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the Notarial Law. Then, too, by making it appear that he is duly commissioned when he is not, he is, for all legal intents and purposes, indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath similarly proscribes. These violations fall squarely within the prohibition of Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which provides: "A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct."15 (Emphasis supplied.)Here, it is undisputed that Atty. Amihan, Jr. notarized the deed in 2003. However, the office of the clerk of court certified that Atty. Amihan, Jr. was not a commissioned notary public in that year and that no copy of the deed was filed. The investigating commissioner likewise confirmed with the RTC that Atty. Amihan, Jr. has no notarial commission in 2003. In contrast, Atty, Amihan, Jr. presented imprints of his rubber stamps for the year 2003. Yet, they do not contain material information such as his notarial commission number. Atty. Amihan, Jr. also submitted a recommendation letter stating that his appointment as notary public expired on December 31, 2003. Nonetheless, the certification from the clerk of court belied the contents of the letter. The prevailing law at the time of notarization in 2003 was the Revised Administrative Code which provides that the oath of office of a notary public and his commission shall be filed and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of Court of the RTC.16 A certification issued by the clerk of court stating that a lawyer has no notarial commission is sufficient to establish that fact.17 Indeed, Atty. Amihan, Jr. was unable to submit a copy of his certificate of authority for 2003 and his notarial reports and register for that year. On this point, we stress that in an administrative case against a lawyer, preponderant evidence is necessary which means that the evidence adduced by one side is superior to or has greater weight than that of the other.18 The burden of proof rests upon the complainant.19 Verily, Lilia proved that Atty. Amihan, Jr. was not a commissioned notary public in 2003.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, 10-16.
2Id. at 17.
3Id. at 19-20.
4Id. at 22.
5Id. at 1-8.
6Id. at 31. The imprints bear the following information: JUANITO S. AMIHAN, JR.NOTARY PUBLIC7Id. at 79.
UNTIL DECEMBER 31, 2003
PTR NO. 1098595
BACOLOD CITY, 10-04-02
IAN 5520-82044-R
8Id. at 80.
9Id. at 81.
10Id. at 44-58.
11Id. at 91-94.
12Id. at 87.
13Villaflores-Puza v. Atty. Arellano, 811 Phil. 313,315 (2017); Coronado v. Atty. Felongco, 398 Phil. 496, 502 (2000); Talisic v. Atty. Rinen, 726 Phil. 497, 500 (2014); Ang v. Atty. Gupana, 726 Phil. 127, 134-135(2014).
14 366 Phil. 155(1999).
15Id. at 161.
16 Administrative Code, Sections 236 and 248, as amended by Executive Order No. 41, s. 1945.
17 Sps. Frias v. Atty. Abao, A.C. No. 12467, April 10, 2019.
18Aba, et al. v. Attys. De Guzman, Jr., et al., 678 Phil. 588, 601 (2011).
19Cruz v. Atty. Centron, 484 Phil. 671, 675 (2004)
20 537 Phil. 409 (2006).
21Id. at 417-418.
22 290-A Phil. 57(1992).
23Id. at 62.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary