ELENA BIETE LEONES VDA. DE MILLER, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ROLANDO B. MIRANDA, RESPONDENT.

Leones Vda. de Miller versus Miranda

The Case

This is an administrative case for disbarment filed by Elena Biete Leones Vda. de Miller against Atty. Rolando B. Miranda. The complainant asks that the respondent lawyer be disciplined because he submitted to a trial court a special power of attorney that he himself had notarized, but which had been altered by handwritten insertions changing its meaning. The case matters because it gathers in one place the standards every reviewee must know on the office of a notary public, on the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, and on a lawyer's duty under the Code of Professional Responsibility not to engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct.

Procedural History

The complainant filed her administrative complaint dated December 12, 2009 directly before the Supreme Court. The matter was referred to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. The Investigating Commissioner, in a Report and Recommendation dated March 23, 2011, found the respondent administratively liable and recommended suspension from the practice of law for one year and disqualification as a notary public for two years. In a Resolution dated June 20, 2013, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Board of Governors adopted and approved that recommendation, but modified the penalty to suspension from the practice of law for six months, immediate revocation of the respondent's notarial commission, and disqualification from appointment as a notary public for one year. The respondent moved for reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution dated September 27, 2014. The case then came before the Supreme Court for final action.

Facts

The complainant had filed an ejectment case before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Angeles City, Branch III, against a certain Clarita Rodriguez Magbuhos. A certain Corazon P. Manansala appeared for Magbuhos as her claimed attorney-in-fact, together with the respondent as counsel. To prove her authority, Manansala presented a special power of attorney that the respondent had notarized on March 6, 2009 and entered in his notarial register as Document Number 340, Page Number 68, Book Number IX, Series of 2009.

On scrutiny, the complainant's counsel pointed out that the authority given to Manansala concerned a cash loan extended to one Nestor Cabais, and not the ejectment case. Insisting that she was authorized, Manansala, through the respondent, submitted another special power of attorney. It was almost identical to the first, but with two changes: the phrase about the cash loan was enclosed in a handwritten parenthesis, and a handwritten phrase describing property located at Purok 6, Aguinaldo Street, Sapang Bato, Angeles City was inserted in its place. The handwritten changes bore no initials or counter-signatures of Magbuhos and no indication of when they were made.

In an Order dated November 18, 2009, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities denied admission of the altered special power of attorney and ruled that Manansala had no authority to represent Magbuhos in the ejectment case. It held that the handwritten insertions were made after notarization and lacked the counter-signatures of Magbuhos. This led to the administrative complaint. For his defense, the respondent claimed the changes were neither malicious nor intentional but the product of honest mistake or oversight. He explained that he asked his secretary to prepare the document from a similar one in his files, assumed the corrections had been made, did not proofread it, and notarized it. He also claimed that upon discovering the error, he informed Magbuhos, who verbally instructed him to make the corrections.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent should be held administratively liable for notarizing a document that did not reflect the true intent of his client and for submitting an altered notarized document to the court.
• Whether or not the respondent may escape liability by blaming his secretary for the error in the document he notarized.
• Whether or not the respondent's act of causing the handwritten alterations on the notarized special power of attorney, absent competent proof of authority from his client, violated the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Applicable Provisions

Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.

The Court used this rule to condemn the respondent's act of intercalating the notarized document in a way that changed its meaning.

The Court also applied the Notarial Law and the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, which require a duly commissioned notary public to make the proper entries in his notarial register and to refrain from any dereliction or any act which may serve as a cause for the revocation of his commission or the imposition of administrative sanctions. These requirements are the measure of the respondent's conduct as a notary.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the respondent administratively liable. It stressed that a notary public must be mindful of the significance of the notarial seal, because the seal converts a document from a private to a public instrument, after which it may be presented as evidence without need of proof of its genuineness and due execution. Notarization, the Court said, should not be treated as an empty, meaningless, or routinary act. A notary public exercises duties calling for carefulness and faithfulness, must inform himself of the facts he certifies to, and must not take part in or allow himself to be part of illegal transactions. The respondent's failure to carefully double-check the draft led him to notarize a document that did not reflect the true intent of his client.

On the second issue, the Court refused to let the respondent pin the blame on his secretary. Case law instructs that in these instances, the lawyer himself, not merely his secretary, should be held accountable for these kinds of misdeeds.

On the third issue, the Court found that the respondent himself caused the intercalation of the notarized special power of attorney by inserting handwritten alterations that changed its meaning, thus violating Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. His claim of verbal authority from Magbuhos, absent any competent proof, was self-serving and could not be given credence. The Court held that his acts not only caused damage to those directly affected but also tainted the integrity of the legal profession by degrading the function of notarization, so he is liable not only as a notary public but also as a lawyer.

Doctrine

• Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act; it is invested with substantive public interest, because it converts a private document into a public document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity.
• A notary public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements of his notarial duties, must inform himself of the facts he certifies to, and must not take part in or allow himself to be part of illegal transactions.
• A lawyer may not escape administrative liability for a defective notarized document by blaming his secretary; the lawyer himself is accountable.
• Altering a document already notarized, in a way that changes its meaning and without competent proof of the client's authority, is unlawful, dishonest, immoral, or deceitful conduct under Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent guilty of violating the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility, suspended him from the practice of law for one year, revoked his incumbent notarial commission if any, and prohibited him from being commissioned as a notary public for two years, effective immediately, with a stern warning.

Remember This

Memorize the line that notarization is not an empty, meaningless, or routinary act but one invested with substantive public interest, and that a lawyer cannot pass the blame to his secretary. Examiners use this case in legal ethics and notarial practice to test the duties of a notary public and the reach of Rule 1.01 on dishonest conduct.