May a Lawyer Perform Notarial Practice Outside the Jurisdiction of His Notarial Commission?

Lawyers are required to follow certain rules in notarial practice. Lawyers engaged in notarial practice are not merely signing a piece of document – they are executing an act that will transform documents into pieces of evidences that can be used by people against other people.

In this January 21, 2015 decision by the Supreme Court, Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Atty. Pedro L. Santos and a certain Atty. “Evelyn”. 

Facts of the Case Re: Complaint against Atty. Siapno 

Atty. Siapno was alleged to be maintaining a notarial office along Alvear St. East, Lingayen Pangasinan and was performing notarial acts and practices in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City without the requisite notarial commission. Atty. Siapno applied and was commissioned to perform notarial functions by Executive Judge Anthony Sison of the RTC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan from March 22, 2007 to December 31, 2008. His notarial commission was never renewed upon expiration.

Complainants presented evidence supporting their allegations such as the pictures of Atty. Siapno’s law office in Lingayen, Pangasinan; and documents to prove that Atty. Siapno performed acts of notarization in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City, to wit: (1) Addendum to Loan and Mortgage Agreement showing that the Promissory Note was notarized before Atty. Siapno in Lingayen, Pangasinan in 2007; (2) Deed of Absolute Sale, dated January 24, 2008, notarized in Natividad, Pangasinan; (3) Joint Affidavit of Two Disinterested Persons Re: Given Name and Date of Birth, dated January 6, 2009, notarized in Dagupan City; and (4) Acknowledgement of Debt, dated January 24, 2008, notarized in Dagupan City.

The Executive Judge found that Atty. Siapno was issued a notarial commission within the jurisdiction of Lingayen, Pangasinan, from January 20, 2003 to December 31, 2004 and February 8, 2005 to December 3, 2006. His commission, however, was cancelled on June 8, 2006 and he was not issued another commission thereafter. The Executive Judge found Atty. Siapno to have violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Commission when he performed notarial functions without commission and recommended that he be fined in the amount of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). The Supreme Court however, was not satisfied with the recommended penalty.

Facts of the Case Re: Atty. Pedro Santos.

The second letter-complaint was filed by Audy B. Espelita (Espelita) against Atty. Pedro L. Santos (Atty. Santos). It alleged that in 2008, Espelita lost his driver’s license and he executed an affidavit of loss which was notarized by Atty. Santos. The said affidavit, however, was denied for authentication when presented before the Notarial Section in Manila because Atty. Santos was not commissioned to perform notarial commission within the City of Manila.

Facts of the Case Re: Atty “Evelyn”.

The third letter-complaint came from a concerned citizen reporting that a certain Atty. Evelyn who was holding office at Room 402 Leyba Bldg., 381 Dasmariñas Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, had been notarizing and signing documents for and on behalf of several lawyers.

Image from www.diasnotary.com.

 Decision of the Supreme Court Re: Atty. Siapno.

Atty. Siapno is guilty of violating  Section 11, Rule III of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice;

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 (2) 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.

Under the rule, only persons who are commissioned as notary public may perform notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the court which granted the commission. Clearly, Atty. Siapno could not perform notarial functions in Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City of the Province of Pangasinan since he was not commissioned in the said places to perform such act.

The Supreme Court stated the importance of notarization done by lawyers. The Court said;

Time and again, this Court has stressed that notarization is not an empty, meaningless and routine act. It is invested with substantive public interest that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public.12 It must be emphasized that the act of notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face, and for this reason, notaries public must observe with utmost care the basic requirements in the performance of their duties.

Atty. Siapno also violated Canons 1 and 7 of the Code of professional Responsibility which proscribes all lawyers from engaging in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct and directs them to uphold the integrity and dignity of the legal profession, at all times.

Court’s Decision Re:Atty Santos and Atty. Evelyn.

The Judge handling the case of Atty. Santos and Atty. Evelyn was no longer the Executive Judge of RTC-Manila at the time the orders of the Court were handed down to him. To date, no formal investigation has been conducted on the alleged violation of Atty. Santos and the reported illegal activities of a certain Atty. Evelyn. Therefore, the Court stated that the incumbent Executive Judge of the RTC-Manila, whether permanent or in acting capacity, is ordered to conduct a formal investigation on the matter and to submit his Report and Recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of copy of this decision.

 The Court ended with the following decision;

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED from the practice of law for two (2) years and BARRED PERMANENTLY from being commissioned as Notary Public, effective upon his receipt of a copy of this decision.

With respect to the complaints against Atty. Pedro L. Santos and a certain Atty. Evelyn, the Clerk of Court is ordered to RE-DOCKET them as separate administrative cases. The Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Manila, is ordered to conduct a formal investigation on the matter and to submit his Report and Recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of a copy of this decision.

SO ORDERED.

Read the full case here:
Re: Violation of Rules on Notarial Practice.
A.M. 09-6-1 SC January 21, 2015