A.C. No. 10928. December 09, 2020
JUDGE JUANITA T. GUERRERO, COMPLAINANT,VS.ATTY. MA. ELEANOR LA-ARNI A. GIRON, RESPONDENT.
ZALAMEDA, J.:
dated 24 September 2015, submitted by Executive Judge Juanita T.
Guerrero of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City before the
Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC). The Executive Judge endorsed to the
OBC, for appropriate action, the execution of notarial acts by
respondent Atty. Ma. Eleanor La-Arni A. Giron despite expiration of her
commission as notary public.
Antecedents
In the letter-report, Executive Judge Guerrero alleged that the
Office of the Clerk of Court of Muntinlupa City conducted an inventory
of its notarial records. Upon verification, respondent was found to have
submitted notarial reports beyond the expired term of her notarial
commission. Further, the dates appearing on the notarial stamps of the
documents notarized by respondent, which should indicate the expiry date
of her term, were erased or tampered with to make it appear that she
still had a valid commission.[2]
By Resolution[3] dated 20
January 2016, the Court required respondent to comment on the
letter-report and referred this administrative case to Executive Judge
Guerrero for further investigation, report, and recommendation.
In her comment, respondent asserted she believed in good faith that
her notarial commission was valid and had yet to expire on 31 December
2015 when she notarized the said documents. As respondent received the
notarial commission on 27 September 2013, she was under the impression
that her two (2)-year commission was for the years 2014 and 2015.
Respondent apologized for her error in notarizing documents beyond the
actual expiration of her commission on 31 December 2014. She had no
intention of exercising her privileges as a notary public beyond the
validity of her commission. Moreover, respondent averred it was the
first and only time she applied for a notarial commission. She merely
notarized a few documents exclusively for clients or members of her law
firm. Respondent further submitted that her continued filing of a
notarial report conclusively established her good faith.[4]
Findings and Recommendation of the Executive Judge
In her Report/Recommendation dated 27 September 2017, Executive Judge
Guerrero noted that respondent’s appointment and commission as notary
public was for a specified term beginning on 27 September 2013 and
ending on 31 December 2014. While respondent claimed good faith, she was
given a copy of her appointment which expressly provided that her
commission as notary public for Muntinlupa City would end on 31 December
2014. Also, the fact that the dates on the stamped portions of the
notarized documents were erased or altered to make it appear that her
term ends in 2015 belied her claim of good faith.[5]
Contrary to respondent’s claim that the documents involved were few
and limited, the Executive Judge found that respondent notarized a total
of twenty-eight (28) documents after the expiration of her term.
Despite respondent’s profuse apologies, she remains liable for violating
the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice for performing notarial acts beyond
the validity of her commission. Thus, the Executive Judge recommended
respondent’s disqualification from being commissioned as notary public
for a period of two (2) years, with a warning that repetition of a
similar violation will be dealt with severely.[6]
Ruling of the Court
The Court agrees with the findings of the Executive Judge, except as to the recommended penalty.
Time and again, the Court has emphasized that notarization of
documents is not an empty, meaningless routinary act but one invested
with substantive public interest. The notarization by a notary public
converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible
in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. A notarized
document is, by law, entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It
is for this reason that a notary public must observe with utmost care
the basic requirements in the performance of his duties; otherwise, the
public’s confidence in the integrity of a notarized document would be
undermined.[7]
Without a commission, a lawyer is unauthorized to perform any of the
notarial acts. A lawyer who acts as a notary public without the
necessary notarial commission is remiss in his professional duties and
responsibilities.[8]
In the present case, respondent admittedly performed the notarial
acts without a valid notarial commission. In her defense, respondent
insists she acted in good faith since she believed her commission would
actually expire on 31 December 2015. However, her claim of good faith is
belied by the tampered dates on the stamps appearing in the notarized
documents. On the stamped portions below her signature, it should
indicate that her notarial commission was valid until 31 December 2014
only. To make it appear that she still had a valid commission, the “4”
in 2014 was altered by a “5,” superimposed or handwritten over the
original number.
With each act of tampering, respondent was constantly reminded that
her commission was set to expire on 31 December 2014. If respondent
truly acted in good faith, she could have easily checked the term of her
commission since she was furnished a copy of her appointment.
illtimately, the multiple acts of changing dates from 2014 to 2015
exhibited bad faith and established respondent’s intention to continue
notarizing documents even with an expired notarial commission.
By performing notarial acts without the necessary commission from the
court, respondent violated not only her oath to obey the laws,
particularly the Rules on Notarial Practice, but also Canons 1 and 7 of
the Code of Professional Responsibility, which proscribe all lawyers
from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and
direct them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession,
at all times.[9]
The Court, in Nunga v. Atty. Viray,[10]
appropriately held that 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 act 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.”[11]
In a long line of cases, the Court imposed serious disciplinary
sanctions upon lawyers for notarizing documents with expired
commissions. In Zoreta v. Atty. Simpliciano,[12]
the respondent was, likewise, suspended from the practice of law for a
period of two (2) years and was permanently barred from being
commissioned as a notary public for notarizing several documents after
the expiration of his commission. In the case of Judge Laquindanum v. Atty. Quintana,[13]
the Court suspended a lawyer for six (6) months and was disqualified
from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years
because he notarized documents outside the area of his commission and
with an expired commission. In Japitana v. Atty. Parada,[14] following the Court’s pronouncements in Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice,[15]
the lawyer was suspended for two (2) years from the practice of law and
forever barred from becoming a notary public when he notarized
documents with no existing notarial commission. Finally, in the recent
case of Spouses Frias v. Atty. Abao,[16]
a lawyer who performed the notarial act without the required commission
was also suspended from the practice of law for two (2) years and
permanently barred from being commissioned as notary public.[17]
Considering respondent’s act of notarizing documents without
requisite authority, coupled with the tampering of the stamped dates to
make it appear she still had a valid commission, the Court finds the
recommended penalty insufficient. Instead, respondent must be
permanently barred from being commissioned as notary public and
suspended from the practice of law for a period of two (2) years.
WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Ma. Eleanor La-Ami A. Giron is found GUILTY
of malpractice as a notary public, and of violating the lawyer’s oath
as well as Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility. Accordingly, she is SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years and BARRED PERMANENTLY from being commissioned as Notary Public, with warning that a repetition of similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
This Decision shall take effect immediately upon receipt of Atty. Ma.
Eleanor La-Arni A. Giron. She shall inform this Court and the Office of
the Bar Confidant in writing of the date she received a copy of this
Decision. Copies of this Decision shall be furnished the Office of the
Bar Confidant, to be appended to respondent’s personal record, and the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Office of the Court Administrator
is directed to circulate copies of this Decision to all courts
concerned.
SO ORDERED.
Peralta, C.J., Perlas-Bernabe, Leonen, Caguioa, Gesmundo,
Hernando, Carandang, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Lopez, Delos Santos,Gaerlan, and Rosario, JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, p. 1.
[2] Id.
[3] Rollo, Resolution dated 20 January 2016.
[4] Rollo, Comment dated 04 September 2017.
[5] Rollo, Report/Recommendation dated 27 September 2017.
[6] Id.
[7] Spouses Elmer and Mila Soriano v. Atty. Gervacio B. Ortiz, J, A.C. No. 10540, 28 November 2019 [Per CJ Peralta].
[8] Japitana v. Parada, A.C. No. 10859, 26 January 2016 [Per Curiam].
[9] Spouses Frias v. Abao, A.C. No. 12467, 10 April 2019 [Per J.Peralta].
[10] A.C. No. 4758, 30 April 1999 [Per CJ Davide, Jr.].
[11] See also supra at note 9.
[12] A.C. No. 6492, 18 November 2004 [Per J. Chico-Nazario].
[13] A.C. No. 7036, 29 June 2009 [Per CJ Puno].
[14] Supra at note 8.
[15] A.M. No. 09-6-1-SC, 21 January 2015 [Per J. Mendoza].
[16] Supra at note 9.
[17] Id.