In the case of JUDGE LILY LYDIA LAQUINDANUM vs. ATTY. NESTOR Q. QUINTANA, En Banc, A.C. No. 7036, June 29, 2009, the Philippine Supreme Court revoked the notarial commission of respondent Atty. Nestor Q. Quintana, disqualified him from being commissioned as notary public for a period of two (2) years, and suspended him from the practice of law for six (6) months effective immediately, with a warning that a repetition of a similar violation would be dealt with even more severely.
The administrative case against Atty. Quintana stemmed from a letter addressed to the Court filed by Executive Judge Lily Lydia A. Laquindanum of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato requesting that proper disciplinary action be imposed on him for performing notarial functions in Midsayap, Cotabato, which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial commission, and for allowing his wife to do notarial acts in his absence.
In her letter, Judge Laquindanum alleged that pursuant to A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, executive judges are required to closely monitor the activities of notaries public within the territorial bounds of their jurisdiction and to see to it that notaries public shall not extend notarial functions beyond the limits of their authority. Hence, she wrote a letter to Atty. Quintana directing him to stop notarizing documents within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court of Midsayap, Cotabato (which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning court that issued his notarial commission for Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao) since certain documents notarized by him had been reaching her office.
In its Report and Recommendation, the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) of the Supreme Court recommended that Atty. Quintana be disqualified from being appointed as a notary public for two (2) years; and that if his notarial commission still exists, the same should be revoked for two (2) years. The OBC found the defenses and arguments raised by Atty. Quintana to be without merit.
The OBC cited Section 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, thus:
“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 court is made, unless earlier revoked [or] the notary public has resigned under these Rules and the Rules of Court.
The OBC stated that under the rule, respondent may perform his notarial acts within the territorial jurisdiction of the commissioning Executive Judge Concha, which was in Cotabato City and the Province of Maguindanao only. But definitely he could not extend his commission as notary public in Midsayap or Kabacan and in any place of the province of Cotabato as he was not commissioned thereat to do such act. Midsayap and Kabacan were not part of either Cotabato City or Province of Maguindanao but part of the province of North Cotabato. Thus, the claim of respondent that he could exercise his notarial commission in Midsayap, Cotabato because Cotabato City was part of the province of Cotabato was absolutely devoid of merit.
Further, per the OBC, evidence on record also showed that there were several documents which the respondent’s wife had herself notarized. Respondent justified that he could not be blamed for the act of his wife as he did not authorize the latter to notarize documents in his absence. According to him, he even scolded and told his wife not to do it anymore as it would affect his profession.
The OBC cited the case of Lingan v. Calubaquib et al., Adm. Case No. 5377, June 15, 2006 where the Court held, thus:
“A notary public is personally accountable for all entries in his notarial register; He cannot relieve himself of this responsibility by passing the buck to (his) secretaries”
The OBC stated that a person who is commissioned as a notary public takes full responsibility for all the entries in his notarial register. Respondent cannot take refuge claiming that it was his wife’s act and that he did not authorize his wife to notarize documents. He is personally accountable for the activities in his office as well as the acts of his personnel including his wife, who acts as his secretary.
The OBC stressed further that Sec. 2, (b), Rule IV of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides, thus[:]
“A person shall not perform a notarial act if the person involved as signatory to the instrument or document (1) is not in the notary’s presence personally at the time of the notarization; and (2) is not personally known to the notary public through competent evidence of identity as defined by these Rules.”
The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the OBC. However, it found the penalty of suspension from the practice of law for six (6) months and revocation and suspension of Atty. Quintana's notarial commission for two (2) years more appropriate considering the gravity and number of his offenses.
The Court held that after a careful review of the records and evidence, there was no doubt that Atty. Quintana violated the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and the Code of Professional Responsibility when he committed the following acts: (1) he notarized documents outside the area of his commission as a notary public; (2) he performed notarial acts with an expired commission; (3) he let his wife notarize documents in his absence; and (4) he notarized a document where one of the signatories therein was already dead at that time.
The act of notarizing documents outside one’s area of commission is not to be taken lightly, the Court stated. Aside from being a violation of Sec. 11 of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice, it also partakes of malpractice of law and falsification. Notarizing documents with an expired commission is a violation of the lawyer’s oath to obey the laws, more specifically, the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice. Since the public is deceived into believing that he has been duly commissioned, it also amounts to indulging in deliberate falsehood, which the lawyer's oath proscribes. Notarizing documents without the presence of the signatory to the document is a violation of Sec. 2(b)(1), 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, the Court added. Finally, the Court stressed that Atty. Quintana was personally accountable for the documents that he admitted were signed by his wife. He cannot relieve himself of liability by passing the blame to his wife, said the Court. He is, thus, guilty of violating Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, which requires lawyers not to directly or indirectly assist in the unauthorized practice of law, it concluded.
The Court furthermore held that a notarial commission should not be treated as a money-making venture. It is a privilege granted only to those who are qualified to perform duties imbued with public interest. Notarization is not an empty, meaningless, routinary act. It is invested with substantive public interest, such that only those who are qualified or authorized may act as notaries public. The protection of that interest necessarily requires that those not qualified or authorized to act must be prevented from imposing upon the public, the courts, and the administrative offices in general. It must be underscored that notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making that document admissible in evidence without further proof of the authenticity thereof, the Court stated.
