NELSON BUENSUCESO, CORNELIO DE RUNA, GLORIA DE LA PENA, JOSE ANDRADA AND SALVACION JABLO, COMPLAINANTS, VS. ATTY. JOELITO T. BARRERA, RESPONDENT.

The present administrative case instituted by complainants Nelson
Buensuceso, Cornelio De Runa, Gloria de la Pena, Jose Andrada and Salvacion
Jablo charges respondent Atty. Joelito T. Barrera with unauthorized
notarization of documents. The basic
allegation of complainants is that long after the notarial commission of
respondent Atty. Barrera expired in 1978, the latter continued to perform acts
of notarization and affixing, in connection therewith, his notarial seal and
official signature on:

(a)   
a complaint for ejectment in Civil Case No. 109, City Court of Iloilo, Branch 1;

(b)   
an affidavit executed by plaintiff Candelaria Dayot dated 26
September 1990 in said Civil Case;

(b)  
a supplemental affidavit dated 12 October 1990 executed by
Candelaria Dayot;

(c)  
a deed of sale dated 14 August 1990 between Remedios Jocson,
Teresa Padilla and New Gold Star Management and Development Corporation; and

(d)  
a contract to sell dated 29 July 1990 between Candelario Dayot
and Ramon Que,

with intent to impart to said documents
the appearance of notarial authenticity.

The Court required respondent Atty. Barrera to file a comment and
this he did. The complaint dated 24
August 1991 and the comment dated 9 January 1992 were referred to the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) by a Resolution of this Court dated 9
March 1992 for investigation, report and recommendation.

The IBP Iloilo Chapter, in its report (not resolution) dated 15
July 1992, found that the five (5) documents referred to in this administrative
complaint (Administrative Case No. 3727), as well as four (4) other documents
which have been the subject of a separate administrative complaint filed by one
Atty. Teodosio dated 12 August 1991 and lodged before the IBP Iloilo Chapter,
were all notarized by respondent Atty. Barrera between 8 July 1989 and 12
October 1990. Respondent has adduced no
records showing that his notarial commission had been renewed or that any
application for such renewal had been filed, after 1978.

Respondent, in his comment dated 9 January 1992, does not deny that
he had notarized the five (5) mentioned documents. He, however, maintains that his
failure to apply for a renewal
of his notarial commission was due to excusable inadvertence and
negligence. His fault, according to
him, if any, was caused by his secretary to whom he had entrusted the task of
making sure that his notarial commission was renewed annually. He states that he had no intention to
violate the notarial law nor intentionally to mislead and injure the public. Upon learning from his “adversaries” that
his notarial commission had expired, he completely ceased all notarial
activities and, to protect the validity of documents he had notarized during
the period in question, he (respondent Atty. Barrera) filed before the Regional
Trial Court of Iloilo City, a petition for confirmation of his notarial acts
and status as a notary public, dated 2 October 1991.

By a manifestation dated 28 March 1992, complainants Buensuceso,
et al. withdrew their administrative complaint against respondent Barrera. The Court is not, of course, bound by such
withdrawal, particularly in view of the character of the acts or omissions with
which respondent Atty. Barrera was charged, which acts or omissions engage the
public interest in marked degree.^[1]

The Court observes that respondent Atty. Barrera has treated the
requirements for issuance of a commission, and renewal of a commission, as
notary public as a casual formality. Section 2632 of the Revised Administrative Code of 1917 takes a
different view for it provides as follows:

“Sec. 2632. Certification
after expiration of authority. —
Any person who, after the expiration of his commission as notary or after the
termination of his authority to act as such, shall affix his seal or official
signature to any document with intent to impart the appearance of notarial
authenticity thereto, shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding P1,000.00 or
imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year, or both.”

In the instant case, more than twelve
(12) years lapsed before respondent Atty. Barrera “realized” that his
commission as a notary public had expired in 1978 and had not thereafter been
renewed. His effort to shift
responsibility from his shoulders to those of his hapless secretary do not
strike the Court as the kind of diligence properly required of a member of the
Bar in performing his duties as notary public. We consider that respondent Atty. Barrera’s behavior constituted
violation of law and gross misconduct on his part.

In Joson v. Baltazar,^[2] the
Court said:

“In In the Matter of the Disbarment of Dominador E. Flores: City Fiscal R. Lozada v. Dominador E. Flores,
respondent attorney notarized six (6) documents consisting of an extrajudicial
partition of an estate, a deed of sale with right of repurchase and four (4)
deeds of absolute sale, all involving unregistered land, at a time when his
commission as notary public had expired. The Court characterized his conduct as ‘reprehensible,’ ‘constituting as
it does not only malpractice but also the commission, in six separate and
distinct occasions, of the crime of falsification of public documents, [which]
justifies his disbarment,’ and disbarred him.

Under the foregoing case, respondent Baltazar’s conduct must be
similarly characterized as malpractice and falsification of a public document. Notarization of a private document
converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court
without further proof of its authenticity. Courts, administra­tive agencies and the public at large must be able to
rely upon the acknowledgement executed by a notary public and appended to a
private instrument. Notarization is not
an empty routine; to the contary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and the
protection of that interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or
authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the
courts and administrative offices generally.”^[3]
(Underscoring supplied)

The record shows that five (5) instances of unauthorized
notarization are involved here and that respondent is responsible for at least
five (5) separate instances of falsification of public documents (the other
four [4] documents being the subject matter of a separate administrative
complaint which is not presently before this Court, we put aside for present
purposes only). Since respondent seemed
unaware that his notarial commission expired in 1978, it seems entirely
possible that he had similarly notarized, without legal authority, other still
unidentified documents during the twelve (12) years from 1978 to 1990. In the circumstances of this case, and
taking into account the recommendation of the IBP Iloilo Chapter in its report
dated 15 July 1992, the Court believes that suspension of respondent Atty.
Joelito Barrera from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year to be an
appropriate administrative penalty.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to SUSPEND respondent
Atty. Joelito Barrera from the practice of law for a period of one (1) year from notice of this Resolution. Copies of this Resolution shall be furnished to all the courts of
the land and as well to the Office of the Bar Confidant, Supreme Court, where
it shall be spread on the personal record of respondent attorney.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Feliciano, Regalado, Nocon, and Campos Jr., JJ., concur.

^[1]
See, Lantoria v. Atty. Ireneo Bunyi, Administrative Case No. 1769,
Resolution dated June 8, 1992 (Per Curiam).

^[2]
194 SCRA 114 (1991).

^[3]
194 SCRA at 118-119.