JUDGE LILY LYDIA A. LAQUINDANUM, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. NESTOR Q. QUINTANA, RESPONDENT.

Laquindanum versus Quintana

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment and disciplinary action brought by Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum, Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato, against Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana. The complainant charged the respondent with performing notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato, a place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial commission, and with allowing his wife to perform notarial acts in his absence. The case matters because it fixes the metes and bounds of a notary public's authority, reminds every lawyer that a notarial commission is a privilege burdened with public interest, and holds a notary personally accountable for the notarial acts done in his office, even by his own wife.

Procedural History

The case began not with a complaint in the ordinary sense but with a letter dated November 29, 2005, addressed to the Supreme Court by Judge Laquindanum, requesting that proper disciplinary action be imposed on Atty. Quintana. Acting on that letter, the Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated February 14, 2006, required Atty. Quintana to comment on the letter. In a Resolution dated March 21, 2006, the Court referred the case to the Office of the Bar Confidant for investigation, report, and recommendation. The Office of the Bar Confidant conducted hearings, received the evidence of both parties, and submitted its Report and Recommendation dated October 3, 2008, recommending that Atty. Quintana be disqualified from being appointed as a notary public for two years and that his notarial commission, if still existing, be revoked for two years. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Office of the Bar Confidant but imposed a heavier penalty, and decided the case in June 2009.

Facts

Atty. Quintana held a notarial commission issued by Executive Judge Reno E. Concha of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City, effective May 24, 2004 until December 31, 2005. That commission covered Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao. Midsayap, however, is not part of Cotabato City or of the Province of Maguindanao; it is part of the Province of Cotabato, whose city is Kidapawan City. Judge Laquindanum, as executive judge, wrote Atty. Quintana a letter directing him to stop notarizing documents within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, since documents he had notarized were reaching her office. Despite that directive, he continued to notarize in Midsayap, as shown by an Affidavit of Loss of ATM Card executed by Kristine C. Guro and an Affidavit of Loss of Driver's License executed by Elenita D. Ballentes. Investigation also revealed that it was Atty. Quintana's wife who performed notarial acts whenever he was out of the office, as attested in a Joint Affidavit executed by Guro and Ballentes.

At the hearings before the Office of the Bar Confidant, Judge Laquindanum presented a Deed of Donation notarized by Atty. Quintana in 2004, in which Honorata Rosil appears as a signatory, although she had died on March 12, 2003, as shown by a Certificate of Death. Judge Laquindanum also testified that Atty. Quintana continued to notarize documents in 2006 and 2007 even though his commission had expired on December 31, 2005 and had not been renewed, supporting her claim with several affidavits of loss and a certificate of candidacy bearing his subscriptions.

For his part, Atty. Quintana admitted that the signatures on most of the documents were his, except three affidavits which he said were signed by his wife, the result of what he called an entrapment operation by the complainant. He denied authorizing his wife to notarize and claimed he had slapped her and told her to stop. He argued that Midsayap is part of the Province of Cotabato, that he held a commission, and that as a lawyer of good standing he could practice his profession throughout the Philippines. He also claimed that Judge Laquindanum had no authority to prohibit him, and that she had delayed his petition for a commission because he had not paid his Integrated Bar of the Philippines dues. The records showed that he paid his dues for 2005 and his arrears only on January 9, 2006, after he had filed his petition in 2004. He asked for forgiveness and for another chance, saying notarization was the bread and butter of his family.

Issues

• Whether or not Atty. Quintana violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice by performing notarial acts in Midsayap, Cotabato, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his commission.
• Whether or not Atty. Quintana performed notarial acts after his commission had expired on December 31, 2005.
• Whether or not Atty. Quintana may be held personally accountable for the notarial acts performed by his wife in his absence.
• Whether or not Atty. Quintana committed a violation by notarizing a Deed of Donation in which one of the signatories was already dead at the time of notarization.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Office of the Bar Confidant is the appropriate penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Section 11 of Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides:

Jurisdiction and Term. A person commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts in any place within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court for a period of two years commencing the first day of January of the year in which the commissioning is made, unless earlier revoked or the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.

This provision confines the notary's acts to the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court, which in this case was Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao, and not Midsayap.

Section 2, paragraph b, of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides:

A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document is not in the notary's presence personally at the time of the notarization; and is not personally known to the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.

This provision requires the personal presence of the signatory, and it was violated when Atty. Quintana notarized a deed in which a signatory was already dead.

Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as discussed in the decision, requires that:

A lawyer shall not directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law.

This canon bears on the acts of the respondent's wife, for which he is answerable.

Canon 7 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, as discussed in the decision, provides:

A lawyer shall at all times uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession.

This canon is the standard against which the respondent's entire conduct is measured.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Atty. Quintana violated Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. His commission covered only Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao, and Midsayap is part of the Province of Cotabato. The Court stressed that notarizing documents outside one's area of commission is not to be taken lightly; aside from violating the Rules, it partakes of malpractice of law and falsification.

On the second issue, the Court held that notarizing documents with an expired commission violates the lawyer's oath to obey the laws, more specifically the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and, because the public is deceived into believing that he has been duly commissioned, amounts to indulging in deliberate falsehood.

On the third issue, the Court held that Atty. Quintana is personally accountable for the documents signed by his wife. He cannot relieve himself of liability by passing the blame to her. He is thus guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which forbids a lawyer from directly or indirectly assisting in the unauthorized practice of law.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that notarizing a document without the presence of the signatory violates Section 2, paragraph b, of Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and the lawyer's oath, which unconditionally requires lawyers not to do or declare any falsehood.

On the fifth issue, the Court adopted the findings of the Office of the Bar Confidant but found the recommended penalty too light. Considering the gravity and number of his offenses, the Court imposed suspension from the practice of law for six months and revocation and suspension of his notarial commission for two years. The Court reminded him that a notarial commission should not be treated as a money-making venture, for notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act but is invested with substantive public interest.

Doctrine

A notary public may perform notarial acts only within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court, for the term fixed by the Rules, and any act done outside that territory or after the expiration of the commission is a violation of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. A notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register and for the acts of his personnel, including his wife, and cannot escape liability by passing the blame to them. A notary must not perform a notarial act unless the signatory is personally present before him and known to him through competent evidence of identity. A notarial commission is a privilege burdened with public interest, not a money-making venture, and notarization converts a private document into a public document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity.

Disposition

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

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a notary public is personally accountable for every notarial act done in his office, and his commission reaches only as far as the territorial jurisdiction of the court that issued it. Examiners use this case to test the territorial limits of a notarial commission, liability for a spouse's unauthorized notarial acts, and the principle that notarization is invested with public interest.