COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. SABINO C. MEJARITO, THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE OFFICE, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. PAISAL A. PADATE, RESPONDENT.

Padate versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment brought by the Commission on Elections, through its Campaign Finance Office and represented by Atty. Sabino C. Mejarito, against Atty. Paisal A. Padate, a lawyer and commissioned notary public. The Commission charges that Atty. Padate notarized election documents that had been antedated, that is, made to appear as executed and sworn in 2010 when the forms used were released only in 2013, and that he later notarized a sworn explanation built upon those same documents. The case matters because it tests the evidentiary standard in disbarment proceedings, the burden of proving forgery, and the special duties of a notary public under the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.

Procedural History

The Commission filed a verified complaint-affidavit for disbarment before the Supreme Court. The case was referred to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The investigating commissioner, in a report dated March 22, 2023, recommended a finding of guilt for violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and Rule 1.01 of Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with suspension from the practice of law for two years, immediate revocation of the notarial commission, and disqualification from reappointment as a notary public for two years. The Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar, in a resolution dated June 2, 2023, modified the recommendation, imposing immediate revocation of the notarial commission, disqualification from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, suspension from the practice of law for one year, and an additional fine of 5,000 pesos for failure to file the required position paper. The matter then came before the Supreme Court, which rendered its decision per curiam.

Facts

Amer-Ali B. Mangandog filed a certificate of candidacy for municipal councilor in the May 10, 2010 national and local elections. Election laws required him to file a Statement of Contributions and Expenditures within thirty days from election day. Commission records showed that he did not comply. On August 7, 2014, the Campaign Finance Unit, now the Campaign Finance Office, issued a notice to explain directing him to account for his failure.

Mangandog responded with a sworn letter dated October 27, 2014, claiming that he had seasonably filed his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures and had complied with all legal requirements. The letter was subscribed and sworn to before Atty. Padate. Mangandog attached copies of his Statement of Contributions and Expenditures, a Schedule of Expenditures, and a Summary Report of Expenditures. The jurats of the Statement and the Schedule indicated notarization on June 6, 2010, while the Summary Report bore a jurat dated June 1, 2014.

Upon verification, the Commission discovered that the Statement of Contributions and Expenditures and the Schedule of Expenditures were prepared on forms released and made available only in 2013. It was therefore impossible for Atty. Padate to have notarized them on June 6, 2010. The Commission also noted that Atty. Padate notarized Mangandog's sworn letter-explanation dated November 20, 2014, which invoked the same documents. Atty. Padate denied the charges, insisted that he never notarized the questioned documents, and suggested that unknown persons may have forged his signature and reproduced his notarial seal.

Issues

• Whether or not there is substantial evidence to hold Atty. Padate administratively liable for the notarization of the questioned documents.
• Whether or not Atty. Padate's bare denial and claim of forgery can overcome the evidentiary weight of the notarized documents bearing his signature and commission details.
• Whether or not the antedating of the documents and the other irregularities in their notarization constitute violations of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.
• Whether or not the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in this case warrant an increase or reduction of the imposable penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides:

SEC. 5. False or Incomplete Certificate. – A notary public shall not: (a) execute a certificate containing information known or believed by the notary to be false. (b) affix an official signature or seal on a notarial certificate that is incomplete.

This is the provision directly breached by the antedating, because the notary certified dates he knew or believed to be false.

Canon II, Section 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability provides:

SECTION 1. Proper Conduct. — A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

This supplies the general ethical basis for liability, since knowingly participating in the assertion of falsehood is deceitful conduct.

Canon VI, Section 39 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability provides:

SECTION 39. Manner of imposition. — If one (1) or more aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances are present, the Supreme Court may impose the penalties of suspension or fine for a period or amount not exceeding double of the maximum prescribed under this Rule. The Supreme Court may, in its discretion, impose the penalty of disbarment depending on the number and gravity of the aggravating circumstances. If one (1) or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating circumstances are present, the Supreme Court may impose the penalties of suspension or fine for a period or amount not less than half of the minimum prescribed under the CPRA. If there are both aggravating and mitigating circumstances present, the Supreme Court may offset each other.

This governs the fixing of the penalty, and its third paragraph is the basis for offsetting the aggravating and mitigating circumstances found in this case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the complainant in an administrative case bears the onus of proving the averments of the complaint by substantial evidence, which is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. The Commission's evidence consisted of the very documents purportedly notarized by Atty. Padate, all bearing his signature and the particulars of his commission. The Court held that the existence and presentation of these notarized documents constitute substantial evidence sufficient to support the conclusion that he in fact notarized them.

On the second issue, the Court held that the burden of proving forgery rests upon the party who alleges it. Atty. Padate's uncorroborated assertions did not overcome the evidentiary weight of the documents bearing his commission details and signature as notary public. His denial of participation was rendered implausible, since the surrounding circumstances negated any claim of good faith.

On the third issue, the Court found that the antedating was established, since the forms were accomplished only after the 2013 official forms became available although made to appear as executed in 2010. The Court stressed that notarization is impressed with public interest, converts a private document into a public document, and entitles the instrument to full faith and credence. It also noted other material irregularities: the notarial certificates reflected no competent evidence of identity; the docket numbers were irregular and inconsistent, with the Statement and the Summary Report bearing identical docket numbers although purportedly executed four years apart, in violation of the sequential and chronological recording requirements under Rule VI; and the differing dates of execution and notarization indicated that the documents may have been subscribed before presentation to the notary, contrary to the requirement that the jurat be performed only at the time the document is actually presented and subscribed in the notary's presence. The Court held that these actuations reflect a marked indifference to the mandatory requirements of notarial practice and violate Canon II, Section 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.

On the fourth issue, the Court treated the violation of the notarial rules as a serious offense, but found two modifying circumstances: the unjustified failure to file the required position paper despite due notice, which is an aggravating circumstance, and the fact that this is the respondent's first offense, which is mitigating. Applying the third paragraph of Canon VI, Section 39, the Court offset the two against each other and found no basis to either increase or reduce the penalty otherwise imposable.

Doctrine

First, in disbarment and other administrative cases against lawyers, the complainant need only prove the charge by substantial evidence, and the presentation of notarized documents bearing the respondent's signature and commission details is sufficient to establish that he notarized them.

Second, forgery is never presumed; the burden of proving it rests on the party who alleges it, and a notary's bare denial cannot overcome the evidentiary weight of documents bearing his notarial seal and signature.

Third, a notary public violates Section 5 of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice when he executes a certificate containing information known or believed by him to be false, as when he antedates a jurat, and such conduct likewise violates Canon II, Section 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability, which forbids unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

Fourth, under Canon VI, Section 39 of the Code, where both an aggravating circumstance, such as unjustified disobedience of the orders of the Court or the Integrated Bar, and a mitigating circumstance, such as a first offense, are present, the Court may offset them against each other and impose the penalty prescribed for the offense.

Disposition

The Court found Atty. Padate administratively liable and imposed suspension from the practice of law for one year, immediate revocation of his notarial commission if still existing, and disqualification as a notary public for two years.

Remember This

The one line to memorize is that a notary public shall not execute a certificate containing information known or believed by him to be false, and antedating a jurat is a serious offense against the notarial system. Examiners use this case on the substantial evidence standard in disbarment, on the burden of proving forgery, and on the offsetting of aggravating and mitigating circumstances under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability.